eunomia compost in agriculture final report - wrap compost in... · 2019-05-09 · questionnaires....

OAV024 – Frameworks for Use of Compost in Agriculture in Europe Produced for WRAP Authors: Dr Dominic Hogg Dr Debbie Lister Josef Barth Enzo Favoino Florian Amlinger

26/01/2009

Frameworks for Use of Compost in Agriculture

Report for:

David Tompkins, WRAP

Prepared by:

Dr Debbie Lister

Approved by:

Dr Dominic Hogg

………………………………………………….

(Project Director)

Contact Details

Eunomia Research & Consulting Ltd 62 Queen Square Bristol BS1 4JZ United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)117 9450100 Fax: +44 (0)8717 142942

Web: www.eunomia.co.uk

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all those contacts in the Member States that replied to our questionnaires. We are also grateful to Sarah MacNaughton and David Tompkins, our Project Managers, at WRAP for the understanding shown in respect of some of the difficulties experienced in the course of this project.

WRAP and Eunomia Research and Consulting believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

26/01/09

ii


i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Eunomia Research & Consulting was asked, by WRAP, to carry out a study on the Frameworks for Compost Use in Agriculture in Europe. This is an important study coming, as it does, as the UK seeks to increase the amount of biowaste treated through composting and anaerobic digestion. In the UK, there remain concerns in parts of the agricultural sector, notably the livestock sector, that the use of compost on land may present unacceptable risks to livestock health. The nature of the perceived risks is quite wide-ranging, encompassing issues such as whether the material has undergone sufficient hygienisation prior to its application to land, as well as compost chemistry, and the potential presence of physical impurities.

Given that the agricultural sector is the largest end-use market for compost in Europe, accounting for (on average) around 50 per cent of total demand for compost, it was felt important to understand what lessons, if any, could be learned from other countries. Going forward, the experiences and approaches used to regulate compost production and use in other parts of the EU might aid understanding as to how risks have been, and are being, addressed, and how this is achieved to the satisfaction of end-users in the agricultural sector.

The key aim of the work was to examine and analyse the context within which composts and anaerobic digestates (derived from source-segregated biodegradable wastes) are produced and used in agricultural systems within the EU. The specific areas identified for research were:

1) The size of the composting and anaerobic digestate markets in other EU countries, with an emphasis on quantities supplied to agricultural sectors;

2) The standards to which compost and anaerobic digestates are produced in other EU countries, including risk assessment data which were used in the development of such standards;

3) The implementation of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation (1774/2002) in other EU countries, with a focus on any treatment methodologies which have been developed to transpose EU requirements (for composting and biogas production) into national legislation, collating any risk assessment data which were used in the development of such methodologies;

4) The frameworks within which composts and anaerobic digestates are applied to agricultural land in other EU countries; and

5) Strategies adopted by other EU countries for the development of markets for compost and anaerobic digestates, with an emphasis on how issues relating to perception are addressed.

E.1.0 Approach The approach taken to this study has involved two key elements:

1) Use of existing literature to develop initial prespectives, and to pre-complete a questionnaire to be sent to Member State (MS) representatives;

2) Contacting key Member State representatives in order to comment on, and complete, questionnaires that have been designed to extract the information that the study seeks to obtain, including:

26/01/09

ii

A) Risk assessment approaches relating to regulations and standards;

B) The anaerobic digestion segment of the biowaste treatment product market;

C) The impact of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) on compost standards and regulations; and

D) The perception of compost and digestates on the part of actors in Member States, either as risky, waste-derived materials or a high value product with a positive image.

3) Obtaining additional information from published reports and publicly-available data.

It should be noted that the study focused on Category 3 material under the Animal By-Products Regulation, and Category 2 materials (manure and digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum) which fall within Member States’ approach to regulating composting and / or digestion, and the use of associated products. Since Category 1 materials are not permissible input materials in the production of biowaste treatment products via either composting or anaerobic digestion and must be treated and disposed of entirely separately to either Category 2 or Category 3 material, they are excluded from the scope of this study. The scope was restricted to source-segregated materials only, though some data for France and Spain presented in the report include figures for mixed waste composting since, in these countries, the composting and agricultural use of mixed waste is allowed.

E.2.0 Key Findings As well as outlining the key differences between standards implemented for composting and AD according to country, the unique findings of this study are the focus on the degree to which these standards have been based on risk assessments, as well as the perceptions associated with the use of compost in agriculture.

The meaning of ‘risk assessment’ in this report is the attempt to quantify the risk to the environment, animal, and human health of the presence of PTEs, organic contaminants, pathogens and physical contaminants, by tracing the impact of these factors from source, through pathways (i.e. composting/AD) and finally to the receptor (i.e. agricultural use). The questionnaire responses indicate that a comprehensive risk assessment for standard setting within the compost sector has not really been executed in any European country. Nonetheless, a variety of compost/AD standards have been developed, reflecting different experiences within the various MS, and the fact that all MS are ultimately highly-protective of their agriculture. The key tools and research that have been used to develop the compost and digestate standards are as follows:

Knowledge about the use and application of sewage sludge (Sweden, France);

Load calculations of heavy metal inputs that lead to an acceptable accumulation in soils (Belgium, Germany);

Heavy metal consumption during crop rotations (Netherlands); and

Adapting standards from other countries (Luxembourg).

The compost/AD sector in most European countries is relatively new and small in comparison with the sewage sludge sector, which has been the subject of considerable research, including risk assessments, over the last 20 years. Thus it has been easier and economically more feasible to adapt existing research on sewage sludge and to modify it accordingly for compost/digestate. The only area in which much headway has been made specifically within the compost sector has been in determining the application rates of compost and digestate


iii

according to factors such as nutrient content, nutrient availability and accumulation of heavy metals in the soil.

Germany has, however, provided an important example of where a longer-term study has been undertaken within the EU to assess the risk of potentially-toxic elements (PTEs) in the agricultural system from the application of BTPs. Studies of between 10-20 years in Germany found that the overall risk of longer-term soil contamination was low. Total concentration of heavy metals in both the soil and the crops did not increase over the 10-20 year period, and mobile PTE content remained unchanged, or showed reduced levels, after compost application. Only Cu and Zn posed any small yet manageable long-term contamination risk, and only then, in areas with high background concentrations of these metals already in the soils. The setting of standards in Luxembourg, and support for the standards in Austria, has been provided by the experiences and assessments undertaken in Germany.

The EU Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) as amended by Regulation (EU) 208/2006, specifies the animal by-product (ABP) materials that can be used in composting and anaerobic digestion (AD) plants, requiring that the materials are no larger than 12 mm particle size (in any one plane), and are submitted to a temperature of 70ºC for 1 hour. However, for catering waste (as defined in the ABPR) the competent authority may authorise specific requirements other than those laid down in the ABPR when catering waste is the only ABP being used as raw material in the composting or AD plant.

Some Member States, particularly those with more mature composting markets, have chosen the option of maintaining national regulations for catering wastes, rather than implementing the ‘12 mm particle size at 70ºC for 1 h’ for all material specified under Annex VI of the ABPR. National regulations have been maintained mainly because, in practice, composting and digestion plants have found it difficult to implement the process standards outlined in Annex VI, particularly the 12 mm particle size requirement where composting is concerned.

All MSs seek to demonstrate an effect of processing on pathogens through a test for the presence of one or more pathogens. With the exception of the Netherlands, the tests are set in terms of the presence of a given pathogen rather than in terms of the level of reduction in the presence of the pathogen, which is how process validation tests set out in Annex VI Ch II 13a (d) of the ABPR are specified. From the questionnaire replies received and studies available, only the Netherlands and Sweden have noted the use of a risk assessment following introduction of the ABPR 208/2006.

In the Netherlands, there is no set time-temperature regime for compost or AD plants where manure, catering wastes or other Category 3 wastes comprise the input materials; process validation is instead used as the only hygienisation requirement. A study undertaken by Elsinga (2008)1 has subsequently examined whether the compost and AD regimes used in the Netherlands effectively meet the process validation requirements of the ABPR as amended by Regulation 208/2006. Samples were analysed for Enterococaceae, Escherichia coli and Salmonella Senftenberg in 21 of the 24 plants that currently compost or anaerobically digest source-separated green waste and kitchen waste, collected from around 100 municipalities and representing five different technologies and a mix of hygienisation

1 Elsinga, W. (2008) EU No 1774/2002: Experiences with Process Validation of Biowaste Composting & Digestion in the Netherlands, Orbit Conference Proceedings, October 2008: Moving Organic Waste Recycling Towards Resource Management and Biobased Economy.

26/01/09

iv

methods. The varying time-temperature regimes employed in the different Dutch plants were not found to impose any significant risk on the resultant product from either composting or AD – the plants are able to achieve the 5 log10 reduction required by 208/2006. The methodology employed by Elsinga (2008) has recently been accepted as standard by the Dutch authorities.

Following the 208/2006 amendment, Sweden also commissioned research on alternative treatment methods and their ability to meet hygienisation requirements. The report concluded that mesophilic AD (< 35 ºC) only achieved suitable hygienisation in terms of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg when the fermentation tank was exposed to an ammonium content of 8 mg/l plus a retention time of at least 1.5 days. All thermophilic treatment methods were shown to achieve hygienisation requirements. This was also confirmed in the research undertaken by Elsinga (2008) during the development of the new Dutch system. Common composting systems (including low tech solutions on piles) also achieved the required hygienisation where the turning of the material was undertaken carefully and thoroughly. The report recommended that detailed treatment criteria be set for both compost and AD plants by the Swedish Board of Agriculture in conjunction with the State Veterinary Institute, with a validation procedure to be managed by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. This is now common practice in Sweden, where several plant classes and requirements exist depending on the chosen process and risk type of the material.

The report also discusses whether there have been any perception issues associated with the use of compost and/or digestate in agriculture in the various MS. Key findings include:

On the whole, incidences where perceptions associated with the use of compost/digestate in agriculture have been negative appear to have been minimal across the EU.

However, in 2007 the German sugar industry AGRANA implemented a ban on the use of biowaste compost on contracted sugar beet plots. This ban resulted from a case where animal tissue DNA had been detected in a German consignment of sugar beet chips that was to be exported to the UK. Subsequent scientific investigations were conducted by federal research stations in Germany, giving clear evidence that there is no link between the animal DNA traces and the use of compost (with the research identifying the source of the protein from rodents living on the sugar beet storage piles at the border of the fields). Consequently, the German sugar industry withdrew the ban; in contrast, the ban is currently still in place in Austria.

Although there have been no perception problems with compost/AD in Belgium, the use of BTPs in agriculture is minimal (8 % in 2006), not because of any issues relating to the use of ABP-derived material, but because farmers are paid up to €25 per tonne to use manure on their fields (effectively making it difficult for BTPs to compete with manure).

In Denmark, the overall proportion of sewage sludge used in commercial compost and AD plants is decreasing over time in favour of source-separated kitchen and green wastes, because the BTPs derived from sewage sludge no longer achieve the standards that farmers are now demanding to maintain an ‘ecologically-safe’ farm. This comment is of potential interest given that in the UK, farmers’ perception of risk seems to be the reverse.

In the early days of composting in Germany, the agricultural branch organisation and authorities were typically against the use of compost in agriculture, arguing that they did not want to become ‘the landfill of the nation’. However, a developing environment of trust between compost producers and farmers, success stories within the farming


v

sector, and the quality-focused work of the quality assurance body in Germany, BGK, all helped to build confidence within the agricultural sector regarding the use of compost. Over the last 4 to 5 years, the agricultural sector has become increasingly aware of the positive benefits associated with the use of compost. Supported by discussions at a number of annual conferences in Germany, quality compost is no longer considered to pose a risk to agriculture. The challenges that the agricultural sector now faces, such as the need for soil organic matter, humus management and the recovery of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, all support the need for close cooperation with the compost/digestate sector. In particular, the increasing mineral fertiliser prices (50% over the past 3 years) during recent dry summers (where yield differences between crops fertilised with or without compost have been easily detectable on account of the increased water holding capacity) have highlighted the advantages of compost for farmers on a practical level.

It has been noted recently (Summer 2007) that farmers in Ireland would like to move towards a situation where all the compost they use comes from composting facilities which are part of a Quality Assurance Scheme, though such as scheme does not currently exist in Ireland.

In conclusion, empirical evidence provides little support to the view that the use of BTPs in agriculture poses an unacceptable level of risk to farmers, their crops or their livestock, provided that systems are in place which seek to assure the quality of the BTPs. This does not mean there is zero risk associated with the use of compost. Hence, one could not suggest that the apparent absence of such a problem in the past is evidence of the impossibility of problems arising in future. It does however suggest that these risks are minimal and that the systems in place may be providing appropriate means to manage them.

Furthermore, in some countries with longer experience with the use of BTPs in agriculture, the existence of quality assurance schemes has apparently led to an increase in confidence in the use of BTPs in agriculture over time, sometimes in the wake of what were, initially, distinctly unenthusiastic responses to such possible use.

26/01/09

vi

Contents E.1.0 Approach............................................................................................................................. i E.2.0 Key Findings ...................................................................................................................... ii 1.0 Introduction and Objectives ................................................................................................ 1

1.1 The Role of Agriculture as End User of Biowaste Treatment Products (BTPs)................2 1.2 Aims of the Review..............................................................................................................3 1.3 Matters of Scope.................................................................................................................4 1.4 Structure of the Report .......................................................................................................5

2.0 Approach.............................................................................................................................. 6 3.0 Standards for Compost and Anaerobic Digestates............................................................ 8

3.1 Standards for Compost and AD..........................................................................................8 3.1.1 Feedstocks....................................................................................................................8 3.1.2 Potentially-Toxic Elements........................................................................................ 12 3.1.3 Organic Contaminants .............................................................................................. 22 3.1.4 Hygienisation ............................................................................................................. 26 3.1.5 Physical Impurities .................................................................................................... 35 3.1.6 Genetically-Modified Organisms .............................................................................. 37

3.2 Use in Agriculture ............................................................................................................. 38 3.2.1 Type of Land .............................................................................................................. 39 3.2.2 Application Rates ...................................................................................................... 41 3.2.3 Risk Assessment Data used to Develop Standards ............................................... 48

4.0 Size of Compost and AD Markets ..................................................................................... 54 4.1 Feedstock Use in Compost and AD Facilities................................................................. 54 4.2 Overall Market Size .......................................................................................................... 58 4.3 Principle Crops ................................................................................................................. 58

5.0 The EU Animal By-Products Regulation (1774/2002)..................................................... 62 5.1 Treatment Methodologies Developed to Meet EU Requirements ................................ 62 5.2 Risk Assessment Data used to Develop Methodologies............................................... 68 5.3 Summary........................................................................................................................... 72

6.0 Marketing Strategies for Compost and AD....................................................................... 74 6.1 Marketing Strategies........................................................................................................ 74

6.1.1 Quality Assurance Systems ...................................................................................... 74 6.1.2 Farm Trials ................................................................................................................. 87 6.1.3 Use of Incentives ....................................................................................................... 87 6.1.4 The Efforts of Producers ........................................................................................... 88


vii

6.2 Perception Issues..............................................................................................................88 7.0 Conclusions........................................................................................................................ 95 8.0 References......................................................................................................................... 99

26/01/09

viii

Glossary ABP / ABPR Animal By-Products / Regulation. ABP as defined by the Animal By-Products

Regulation (EC) no. 1774/2002. Category 1 ABP are very high risk materials not to be used for composting/anaerobic digestion. Includes TSE-contaminated materials and catering waste from international transport. Category 2 ABP are high risk materials such as condemned meat that can only be used for composting/anaerobic digestion following rendering. The only category 2 materials that can be used for composting/anaerobic digestion without rendering are manure, digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum, if the competent authority does not consider them to present a risk of spreading any serious transmissible disease. Category 3 ABP are low risk materials that can be used for composting/anaerobic digestion without pre-treatment. Includes household kitchen wastes, hides/skins, hooves/horns, pig bristles and feathers originating from animals that were fit for human consumption and were slaughtered in a slaughterhouse.

Anaerobic digestion (AD) Fermentation of organic feedstocks under anaerobic conditions which produces a methane-rich gas i.e. renewable energy resource, and either a solid digestate or a slurry, which can be used as an organic soil amendment. Solid digestate can also be composted together with structural material or other organic feedstocks.

Biowaste Kitchen and garden waste from source-separated collection of organic household waste.

BTP Biowaste Treatment Products; products from both composting and anaerobic digestion processes.

Catering waste Food waste including used cooking oil originating in restaurants, catering facilities and kitchens.

Compost classes Compost classified according to quality levels. In many cases the classification refers to heavy metal concentration classes which are related to specific use restrictions.

Compost products Composts fit for use Digestate The liquid or solid material (after de-watering) that is produced from the anaerobic

digestion of a biodegradable feedstock. d.m. Dry matter f.m. Fresh matter Food waste Household kitchen waste Garden waste Organic waste from private gardens Green waste Organic waste from gardens and parks HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control point; system of risk management and risk

analysis (originally developed in food processing) of the proposed site and process. It relates mainly to hygienic aspects. The elements of the process which are the critical points that control these risks must be identified and control measures must be applied to stop them from being a problem. This must be included in a plan that is constantly re-evaluated to ensure its functioning.

Heavy metals The potentially toxic elements cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn).

Manure compost Compost from solid stable manure or from dewatered (separated) slurry MS Member States of the European Union MSW Municipal solid waste n.d. Not determined NVZ Nitrate Vulnerable Zone OM Organic matter PTEs Potential toxic elements (mainly used synonymously with heavy metals, , but also


ix

including metalloids such as arsenic). QAS (Quality Assurance System)

External independent quality assurance scheme for composting plants. This includes the approval of plant operation (process management) as well as product certification according to existing compost standards.

SSC Sewage sludge compost; compost produced from dewatered municipal sewage sludge irrespective of the proportion of sludge used in the initial mixture of raw compost feedstocks.

VFG Vegetable, Fruit and Garden waste (in Dutch: GFT). It has special significance in Flanders and The Netherlands where those municipalities designated as GFT regions are obliged to separately collect ‘GFT’ waste.

Used Acronyms for EU Member States and Switzerland

AT Austria FI Finland NL Netherlands BE Belgium FR France PL Poland BG Bulgaria GR Greece PT Portugal CH Switzerland HU Hungary RO Romania CY Cyprus IE Ireland SE Sweden CZ Czech Republic IT Italy SI Slovenia DE Germany LT Lithuania SK Slovakia DK Denmark LU Luxembourg UK United Kingdom EE Estonia LV Latvia ES Spain MT Malta


1

1.0 Introduction and Objectives Eunomia Research & Consulting is pleased to present a report for a Framework for Use of Compost in Agriculture in Europe. This is an important study coming, as it does, as the UK seeks to increase the amount of biowaste treated through composting and anaerobic digestion:

The English Waste Strategy argues strongly in favour of the use of anaerobic digestion (AD) for the treatment of a range of biowastes;2

A recent report for SEPA also indicates that as far as the management of biowastes is concerned, AD is a preferred option;3

The soon-to-be revised Welsh Waste Strategy is likely to make recommendations that local authorities roll out collections for food waste; and

The revised Waste Framework Directive Article 22, on Biowaste, states:4

Member States shall take measures, as appropriate, and in accordance with Articles 4 and 13, to encourage:

a) the separate collection of bio-waste with a view to the composting and digestion of bio-waste;

b) the treatment of bio-waste in a way that fulfils a high level of environmental protection;

c) the use of environmentally safe materials produced from bio-waste.

The Commission shall carry out an assessment on the management of bio-waste with a view to submitting a proposal if appropriate.

The assessment shall examine the opportunity of setting minimum requirements for bio-waste management and quality criteria for compost and digestate from bio-waste, in order to guarantee a high level of protection for human health and the environment.

2 Defra (2007) Waste Strategy for England, Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, May 2007.

3 See AEA Energy and Environment (2008) The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forest Residues in Scotland, Report to SEPA, April 2008; and Jacobs (2008) Development of a Policy Framework for the Tertiary Treatment of Commercial and Industrial Wastes: Technical Appendices, Report for SNIFFER / SEPA, March 2008.

4 The Common Position text, as amended by the Parliament on 17 June, was adopted when the Environment Council met on 20 October 2008. The common position text can be found at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2008-0282+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN . The Directive is expected to be published in the Official Journal in a matter of weeks, and 20 days after this date it will enter into force. Member States have 2 years to “bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply” with the revised WFD.

26/01/09

2

It is significant that the Article suggests that Member States should encourage the use of products from biowaste, as well as separate collection and treatment.

In this context, the issue of markets for products from biowaste treatment acquires increasing significance.

1.1 The Role of Agriculture as End User of Biowaste Treatment Products (BTPs)

The agricultural sector is the largest end-use market for compost in Europe. On average, across the EU, it accounts for around 50 per cent of total demand for compost, with peak levels in Spain (88%).5 Belonging to the mass market, the sector accepts large quantities of biowaste treatment products, without any need for upgrading or mixing with other soil-improving materials.

In the UK, there remain concerns in parts of the agricultural sector, notably the livestock sector, that the use of compost on land may still present risks to livestock. The nature of the perceived risks is quite wide-ranging, encompassing issues of hygienisation of the material to be applied to land, as well as compost chemistry, and the content of physical impurities. These are all contextualised by an over-riding concern to ensure the absence of adverse affects upon livestock health.

WRAP generally seeks to support further development of the compost market within the UK to assist in meeting Landfill Directive targets. Evidently, given the major role played by the agricultural sector as a user of compost in other countries, it is important to understand what lessons, if any can be learned from other countries. Going forward, the experiences and approaches used to regulate compost production and use in other parts of the EU may aid understanding as to how risks are addressed, and how they can be addressed to the satisfaction of end-users in the agricultural sector. Such an approach potentially also highlights sensible and cost-effective measures for further risk mitigation.

Large quantities and repeated applications, combined with the use of arable land for feed and fodder production ensures that the question of risk plays an important role in shaping regulation of compost production and use. The shaping of regulations associated with these risks is particularly important in countries where the market is currently under development, where the "waste derived" character of compost carries with it some suspicion, and where customer confidence in the quality and benefits of compost use cannot be taken for granted on account of a lack of historic experience. In the UK agricultural sector, perceptions are also coloured by the fact that the sector carries with it the memories of various outbreaks of animal diseases.

Much of the current European experience which has been documented relates to the use of compost in agriculture. There is rather less information available about the use of waste-derived digestate in agriculture. Possible reasons for this are that:

5 Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC.


3

Most of the biogas plants in place have dealt only with agricultural wastes, such as manures and slurries;

More recently, the growth in AD as a source of biogas has been based around the use of dedicated crops, so the issue of waste as such does not arise;

Plants treating organic waste are subject to waste legislation, which requires substantially greater efforts in terms of process, treatment, monitoring and documentation compared to plants that only treat farm residues and energy crops. Hence co-digestion (the treatment of both agricultural and organic waste inputs) is not as common as it could and perhaps should be, particularly in rural areas; and

Possibly, where studies have reported on compost use in agriculture in the past, they may have included composted digestate, particularly if standards require digestate to be dewatered, and require the solid digestate to be composted post-anaerobic treatment.

Given this situation, it makes sense to speak of different Biowaste Treatment Products (BTPs) and to distinguish between different ‘ways of making compost’. Certainly, given the fast-evolving situation regarding anaerobic digestion in Europe, and likely now here in the UK, there is a need to understand the particular issues which may be of concern to farmers regarding digestate as opposed to compost. Only relatively few countries (Austria, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Spain) can claim to have significant experiences with digestion of organic waste at present. The increasing relevance of anaerobic digestion in the context of discussions regarding renewable energy, as well as the wider cost-benefit situation (assessed in detail for WRAP by Eunomia), makes it important to evaluate this sector and to understand any key differences between compost and AD as regards the risks presented, and how they are dealt with in different Member States.

1.2 Aims of the Review The key aim of this work is to examine and analyse the context within which composts and anaerobic digestates (derived from source-segregated biodegradable wastes) are produced and used in agricultural systems within the EU. The specific areas identified for research are:

1) The size of the composting and anaerobic digestate markets in other EU countries - with an emphasis on quantities supplied to agricultural sectors and (where permitted) the proportion of materials derived from source-segregated compared to mixed feedstocks used in these sectors. The crops on which these materials are used must also be determined;

2) The standards to which compost and anaerobic digestates are produced (from source-segregated biodegradable wastes) in other EU countries, including risk assessment data which were used in the development of such standards;

3) The implementation of the EU Animal By-Products Regulation (1774/2002) in other EU countries, with a focus on any treatment methodologies which have been developed to transpose EU requirements (for composting and biogas production) into national legislation, collating any risk assessment data which were used in the

26/01/09

4

development of such methodologies;

4) The frameworks within which composts and anaerobic digestates (derived from source-segregated biodegradable feedstocks) are applied to agricultural land in other EU countries. Such frameworks may be legally binding (such as license or exemptions) or voluntary (such as codes of practice), but it is important that the risk management thinking behind the development of any framework be fully understood;

5) Strategies adopted by other EU countries for the development of markets for compost and anaerobic digestates, with an emphasis on how issues relating to perception are addressed.

In addition, a list of contacts and source documents used in the research are provided (see Appendix 2).

1.3 Matters of Scope The Scope of the study is potentially very large indeed. Some focus has been deemed necessary to seek to understand the issues of greatest relevance to the study. The study’s scope is as follows:

The main focus is on waste classified as Category 3 material under the EU Animal By-Products Regulation;

In addition, there is interest in those Category 2 materials (manure and digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum) which fall within Member States’ approach to regulating composting and / or digestion, and the use of associated BTPs. The interest in slurries and manure exists only insofar as products from the treatment of manure are transported to / used in places other than the farm where the manure was produced;

Since Category 1 materials are not permissible input materials in the production of BTPs via either composting or anaerobic digestion and must be treated and disposed of entirely separately to either Category 2 or Category 3 material, they are excluded from the scope of this study. Category 1 material includes all body parts of animals either suspected of or already infected by a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) or that have been killed in the context of TSE eradication measures. The exclusion of such Category 1 material from composting and AD minimises the risk of TSEs being present in the BTPs;

This study assesses the situation in all EU Member States, as well as in Switzerland, though there is typically greater focus on those countries with more extensive experience regarding the production and use of compost. Only Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Flemish region of Belgium can currently claim a mature compost market situation, though the situation in the UK is developing rapidly. Despite their small number, these countries account for more than 2/3 of the biowaste treatment capacity in Europe. Empirical experience combined with a longer history in the application of compost within mature markets is likely to have influenced the perception of end-users as to its quality. It is notable therefore that, to a large extent, the use of compost in these countries is no longer questioned in respect of the potential risks. Indeed, the tendency is for compost use to be accepted on the basis of its benefits, reflecting positive experiences. This increased


5

acceptance includes the tendency towards exempting compost from waste legislation, moving it into the fertiliser regime, and reducing the burden of monitoring in areas where a low or no risk has been confirmed over several years of BTP production and use. This report thus provides most detail on the experiences and approaches of these mature markets within the EU. In addition, information available for the remaining MS is also presented where available, to ascertain as much information on current compost use in the EU as possible.

Although most previous studies of this nature have been focused on aerobic composting, this study seeks to address standards in respect of both composting and digestion, and ‘compost’ as well as ‘digestate’.

1.4 Structure of the Report The report is structured as follows:

Section 2 briefly outlines the approach to the work

Section 3 provides information in respect of the standards currently used in different Member States to regulate the quality of composts and digestate and their application;

Section 4 details the quantity of feedstocks used in compost and AD plants, and the size of both the composting and AD markets in the Member States;

Section 5 discusses the impact of the Animal By-Products Regulation on treatment methodologies used in composting and AD, and to what extent the development of those methodologies has been based on risk assessment; and

Section 6 reviews the marketing strategies that have been used to promote the use of BTPs in the agricultural sector, and any perception issues relating to BTPs from both users and producers, as well as from the general public.

26/01/09

6

2.0 Approach The approach taken to this study has involved the following steps:

1) Devise a pro-forma questionnaire as a basis for extracting the information which the study seeks to obtain (see Appendix A.1.0 for questionnaire/pro-forma template);

2) Develop an interim report on the basis of published reports and publicly-available data;

3) Pre-complete the pro-forma questionnaires as far as possible for the different Member States;

4) Contact Member State representatives with a view to:

i) Having those representatives check the information in the pre-completed questionnaires;

ii) Seeking to fill in gaps through a follow up telephone call; and

5) Complete the report on the basis of analysis of information obtained through the Member State representatives.

This approach, particularly the pre-completion of questionnaires, was deemed most likely to deliver the information required. It became known to the team that, as the study was going on, other questionnaires were being circulated to national representatives. Pre-completion with a view to verification of information seemed more likely to elicit responses than approaches which required the representative to start from scratch.

Replies were received from the following Member States: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland, from LIPOR (the Intermunicipal Waste Management Service of Greater Porto) in Portugal, Spain and Sweden.

A considerable contribution to the data presented in this report has been made by members of the team in a recent report on “Compost Production and Use in the EU” for the European Commission DG Joint Research Centre.6 In addition, pre-ABPR data was also taken, where appropriate, from a previous report written for the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP) on a “Comparison of Compost Standards within the EU, North America and Australasia.”7 Further data was acquired via interviews/questionnaires with key persons within the industry, particularly in the following areas:


7 Hogg, D., Barth, J., Favoino, E., Centemero, M., Caimi, V., Amlinger, F., Devliegher, W., Brinton, W. and Antler, S. (2002). Comparison of Compost Standards Within the EU, North America and Australasia. Report for the Waste and Resources Action Programme.


7

Risk assessment approaches relating to regulations and standards;

The anaerobic digestion part of the BTP market;

The impact of the ABPR on compost standards and regulations; and

The perception of compost and digestates on the part of actors in member States, either as risky, waste-derived materials or as high value products with a positive image.

Finally, results from long-term (10 years or more) European trials from Germany, Austria and Sweden8 have been analysed to inform the real risks associated with the long-term application of compost in relation to agronomic parameters of soils and the effect on vegetation.

It is important to highlight the fact that, in terms of seeking to understand how markets for BTPS have developed in specific countries and how perceptions have changed over the relevant period, no one individual is likely to be able to provide all relevant information. Consequently, what is reported here is unlikely to represent the whole story for the whole BTP market in all countries. The approach used, however, was felt appropriate for gaining an overview of how different Member States have facilitated the development of markets for BTPs.

8 Timmermann, F., Kluge, R. and Bouldan, R. (2008). Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture - Beneficial Crop Cultivation Effects and Potential Risks. Research Results of a Long Term Study in Germany, Final Report. This report is supplemented by A. Schreiber (2003). Economical and Ecological Evaluation of the Use of Compost in Agriculture.

26/01/09

8

3.0 Standards for Compost and Anaerobic Digestates

This section presents the current standards used by the MS for compost and digestates from source-segregated materials, with particular reference to those outputs used in the agricultural sector, and documents the use of risk assessments in developing the current standards. The information presented in this section is based upon existing documentation, with confirmation of the requirements and details of risk assessments provided in the questionnaire responses.

3.1 Standards for Compost and AD Regulators need to apply standards to the production of compost and anaerobic digestion to protect human health and the environment and in addition, to open up markets for the so-called waste-derived product and to reduce transaction costs associated with compost sales through improving consumer confidence. The regulatory aspect of setting standards typically takes place alongside ‘voluntary’ initiatives to establish product specifications which meet the demands of the different end users of compost materials. The voluntary systems set standards which go beyond the precautionary requirements of regulators, so that as well as achieving the standards required by legislators in respect of health and environmental protection, the quality achieved by a particular product conforms to that demanded by the market when it comes to a product ready for sale.

This section documents the current regulations and standards governing the production of composts and digestates within the EU, and where available, the rationale for their existence. The latter aspect focuses on the extent to which standards have been based upon assessment of risks.

3.1.1 Feedstocks

The input waste materials (feedstocks) allowed in the production and use of compost form part of the compost regulations for the majority of EU countries. In general the lists are mainly positive lists, indicating materials that can be used for compost production rather than materials which are excluded. Thus, in controlling the basic characteristics of input materials e.g. source-separated materials, it can be expected that the resultant compost has a greater probability of achieving the desired quality on a consistent basis. In addition, in the majority of countries, the award of product status for BTPs includes, as a minimum requirement, a declaration detailing the input materials used, to help inform customers in their compost purchase.

The Animal By-products Regulation limits the materials which can be dealt within composting and digestion plants:

Category 1 materials cannot be dealt with in composting or biogas plants;

Category 2 materials can be dealt with in composting or biogas plants if they are treated in a particular manner as identified in Article 13. Manure, digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrums can be treated in composting and biogas plants in accordance with Articles 15 and 18;


9

Category 3 materials can be dealt with in composting and biogas plants in a manner consistent with Article 15. Catering waste which is not of international origin can be dealt with in biogas and composting plants in line with rules of national origin until rules are established under Article 33(2).

An overview of the standards and regulations in the EU for input materials in composting facilities is shown in Table 1. A more detailed list of those waste materials allowed for compost production showing the legal basis for the decisions, and shown according to the European Waste Catalogue (EWC) codes can be found in Appendix A.1.0.

In theory, there should also be an additional positive list for the input materials required in anaerobic digestion facilities, based on the fact that anaerobic digestion plants can accept wetter materials such as potato starch water and grease-trap fats. In addition, the heat surplus in digestion plants facilitates the heating of ABP material to 70ºC for 60 min, in order to meet the ABPR requirements. Of those countries where anaerobic digestion is currently most advanced, Spain does not have a positive input-material list. The German Biowaste Ordinance contains a positive list for biowaste which includes allowable source materials for all biowaste treatment plants, even those that can only be treated in AD plants. Likewise, the Austrian Waste Catalogue and Swedish voluntary standards both contain a positive list of waste materials that are suitable for both composting and AD, but in Austria, a number of specified materials (such as rendered fat, glycerine residues) are restricted to being treated at AD plants. In the countries mentioned above, all digestates produced from the permitted materials are considered as a possible feedstock for post-composting.

Within the 26 countries listed in Table 1, 16 countries currently have statutory standards and 2 have voluntary standards for the input materials that can be used the production of BTPs for agriculture.

The most prominent waste groups excluded from compost production are:

Municipal Sewage sludge: BE/Flanders, CH,9DE10, NL, SE11, UK12

Mixed (not source separated) MSW: BE/Flanders, CZ, DE, DK, FI, HU, LU, NL, SE, UK12

Paunch (Cat. 2 ABP): CZ, FI, LU Manure (Cat. 2): LU

9 Being progressively banned going forward.

10 Only excluded for biowaste and green waste composting. Sludge-derived compost is produced and can be applied to agricultural land.

11 Only excluded in the voluntary compost/AD scheme.

12 Only if the compost producer applies for PAS 100 (BSI, 2005) (excludes mixed wastes) and/or Compost Quality Protocol Scheme (Environment Agency, 2007) (excludes mixed wastes and sewage sludge)

26/01/09

10

Reasons for the exclusion of these materials centre around their subsequent impact on the presence of PTEs, organic contaminants, pathogens and physical impurities within BTPs. For example, the exclusion of mixed waste as a possible input material for BTPs in Germany resulted from customers not being happy at the resultant glass and plastic content and the high levels of PTEs present in the compost. Similarly, in the Netherlands, exclusion of sewage sludge and mixed waste composting whilst rapidly introducing a countrywide source-separated collection of organic waste, supported the development of a market for high quality compost and allowed the larger plants to offer a large range of products in order to meet the customers’ needs. Sewage sludge was banned as an input material in Switzerland following a loss of confidence in the applied sludge associated with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; major retailers requested that their suppliers stopped using sewage sludge, and the use of sewage sludge in agriculture dropped drastically, even before any restrictive regulation was in force. Research was undertaken on the higher quality composts as a possible replacement for sewage sludge; the research demonstrated the positive effects of the use of compost in preventing plant diseases in agriculture and horticulture, and identified the necessary process requirements needed to minimise risks associated with compost application. Further information on risk assessments associated with compost and digestate are presented throughout this report.

It is also interesting to note that both Belgium and the Netherlands exclude ABP when collecting catering waste from households – their so-called VFG (vegetable, fruit and garden waste) is, however, considered differently in terms of meeting the requirements of the ABPR in these two countries. In Belgium, in agreement with the European Commission, VFG waste has been made exempt from the ABPR despite the fact that, according to Article 6 of the ABPR, such catering waste is defined as a Category 3 material. This exemption illustrates a lower perception of risk, which is at least partly based on the fact that collection of this type of waste has been common practice in the Flemish region of Belgium since the early nineties and has not subsequently resulted in any problems. By contrast, and in line with the ABPR definitions, VFG waste in the Netherlands remains a Category 3 material that is subject to the hygienisation requirements of the ABPR (see Section 3.1.4).


11

Table 1: General Overview of How Member States Establish Specific Requirements for Input Materials in Composting

Input Material

Source-Separated

Not ABP Category 2 Category 3 Country

Green waste

Industry/ commerce vegetable-

origin organic

Manure Paunch waste Biowaste

Industry/ commerce

organic residues

including. Cat. 3 ABP

Municipal Sewage-sludge

Not source-

separated municipal

solid waste

AT ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ○

BE Flanders ● ● ● ● ●13 ●

BG No regulation or standard

CH ● ● ● ● ● ●

CY No regulation or standard

CZ ● ● ● ● ● ○

DE ● ● ● ● ● ●

DK ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

EE No regulation or standard

ES ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

FI ● ● ● ●14 ● ●15

FR ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ●

GR Currently only mixed waste composting

HU ● ● ● ● ● ● ●16

IE ● ● ● ● ● ●17 ● ○

IT ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ○

LT ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

13 In Belgium, VFG waste (vegetable, fruit, garden waste) has been collected from households since the early 90’s – this has historically excluded any ABP, though two ABPR licensed compost plants now allow general ‘food waste’ (including ABP) as input materials.

14 The definition of biowaste in Finland includes plant and animal residues and partly even paper.

15 Mixed MSW and paunch waste can only be used as a feedstock when co-composted with sewage sludge.

16 Sewage sludge is allowed, but compost that uses this input material rarely makes the required ‘quality grade’ for application to agricultural land.

17 Excludes slaughterhouse wastes

26/01/09

12

Input Material

Source-Separated

Not ABP Category 2 Category 3 Country

Green waste

Industry/ commerce vegetable-

origin organic

Manure Paunch waste Biowaste

Industry/ commerce

organic residues

including. Cat. 3 ABP

Municipal Sewage-sludge

Not source-

separated municipal

solid waste

LU ● ● ● ● ●18

LV No regulation or standard

MT No regulation or standard

NL ● ● ● ● ● ●

PL ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

PT No regulation or standard

SE19 ● ● ● ● ● ●

SI ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

SK No regulation or standard

UK19 ● ● ● ● ● ●

Key: ● Input material allowed for compost/anaerobic digestion (though where the input material includes ABP, individual plant approval is often required from the veterinary service).

○ Input material allowed, but with restrictions for marketing or use, and/or requiring that certain quality requirements are met prior to use e.g. in Italy, sewage sludge limited to maximum 35 % of the starting input mix.

Sources: Compiled using information from questionnaires, Barth et al. (2008)20 and the ISWA (2006)21.

3.1.2 Potentially-Toxic Elements

Legal regulations regarding levels of harmful elements present in compost often form the basis of standards within the EU (particularly for potentially toxic elements). In some MS, there has been an attempt to develop a precautionary standard based upon a desire to prevent the build up of potential toxic elements (PTEs) in soil.

According to Amlinger et al. (2004),22 three basic options are available to determine “safe” limit values for PTEs. These are:

18 Sewage sludge may only be used when combined with green waste. The permissible input materials are defined within individual plant licences thus can differ from plant to plant.

19 Note that the input standards are voluntary rather than statutory in this instance.


21 International Solid Waste Association. (2006). Biological Waste Treatment Survey. Edited by W. Rogalski and C. F. Schleiss.


13

1) A risk-based assessment such as the No Observable Adverse Effect Levels (NOAEL) concept;

2) A mass balance or ‘no net accumulation’ (NNA) approach in relation to the concentration of contaminants in the soil (precautionary approach). This would either:

i) Limit the contaminant concentrations in fertilisers and soil amendments to the same level found in soil background concentrations (“same to same” or “similar to similar” concept), or;

ii) Limit the contaminant load so that it matches the amount of tolerable exports from soil via harvested crops, leaching or erosion (“import = export” concept);

3) Hybrid systems and indicators incorporating 1) and 2), such as the assessment of ‘predicted environmental concentration’ (PEC) in comparison with the ‘predicted no effect concentration’ (PNEC).

A detailed and critical review on concepts for defining heavy metal limit values for the use of compost mainly in agriculture and food production is discussed in Amlinger et al. (2004).22

The current heavy metal limits for European compost standards are presented in Figure 1.23 Further detail is given in Table 2. Usually, quality standards within the EU are compared on the basis of maximum allowable concentrations for a common range of heavy metals in composted materials. However, it should be noted that there are also variable tolerances set for heavy metal limit assessments. For example, during routine measurements taken on behalf of the compost producer in Germany, one PTE value may be 25 % greater than the limit for an individual sample as long as the mean of the 4 sample-batch still meets the limit value. In contrast, no tolerance is given to the results of regular routine samples conducted by the compost producer in Austria (except for the results of parallel samples taken from one single batch at a time). However, the control sampling undertaken by the competent authority in Austria sets a 50 % tolerance level, accounting for variability due to seasons, batches and different laboratories.24

Regarding PTEs, it is worth noting that following 10 years of experience in composting in the Netherlands, a change in legislation in 2007 resulted in the removal of the heavy metal thresholds for the lower quality class of compost, with experience instead recognising that nutrient content rather than heavy metal content was proving to be the

22 Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Pollak, M., Peyr, S., Centemero, M. and Caima, V. (2004) Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers, Study on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, ENV .A.2, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index.htm

23 Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC, and questionnaire responses.

24 Communication with Florian Amlinger, 15/07/2008.

26/01/09

14

limiting factor on compost use within the Netherlands.23 In addition, in Sweden the PTE limits are voluntary rather than statutory, due to the well-developed source separation of input materials and biological treatment methods which have led to good quality compost. Only copper and zinc are governed by legal requirements, these being set according to laws regarding the application of sewage sludge in agriculture, rather than being specific to compost/AD.25

As detailed in Figure 1, consistently higher maximum limits are currently set for the allowable heavy metal concentration of compost in Greece and Estonia, and for quality Class B compost in Austria (which can include mixed waste and sewage sludge as feedstocks, but which cannot be applied to agricultural land). For those countries that can currently claim a mature compost market situation (Germany, Austria, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Sweden, and the Flemish region of Belgium), the following combination of heavy metal contents are permissible in their higher quality composts (i.e. those composts without application restrictions such as non-food, non-agricultural, land restoration etc).

≤ 1.5 mg/kg d.m. cadmium

≤ 100 mg/kg d.m. chromium

≤ 600 mg/kg d.m. copper

≤ 1.5 mg/kg d.m. mercury

≤ 100 mg/kg d.m. nickel

≤ 150 mg/kg d.m. lead

≤ 800 mg/kg d.m. zinc

Data was limited for arsenic, being only seen as a required threshold in relatively few countries. Values were typically less than 15 mg/kg d.m. arsenic.

An important long-term study (10-20 years) that has assessed the risk associated with PTEs in the agricultural system from the application of BTPs was undertaken in Germany by Kluge et al. (2008)26. This study looked at long-term accumulation compared to the background levels of heavy metals in the soil. The study found that that total concentrations of heavy metals in both the soil and the crops did not increase over the 10-20 year period and that mobile PTE content remained unchanged or showed reduced levels after compost application. Only Cu and Zn posed any small yet manageable long-term contamination risk, and only then, in areas with high background concentrations of these metals already in the soils.

25 Questionnaire response.

26 Kluge, R., Deller, B., Flaig, H., Schultz, E. and Reinhold, J. (2008). Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture: Research Results of a Long Term Study in the Federal Republic of Germany - Final Report April 2008. Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg LTZ, Karlsruhe.


15

Figure 1: Heavy Metal Limits (mg/kg d.m.) in European Compost Standards for a) Cadmium, b) Chromium, c) Copper, d) Mercury, e) Nickel, f) Lead, g) Zinc and h) Arsenic.

For comparison, the limits according to EU ECO Label and EC Reg. n° 2092/91 (organic farming) are presented on each graph as the red line and green line respectively.

a) Cd

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Clas

s A+

Cla

ss A

Cla

ss B

Gro

up

1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 2

Gro

up

2: C

lass

3

Clas

s 1

Cla

ss 2

Cla

ss A

Clas

s B

Cla

ss C

Clas

s 1

Cla

ss 2

Vol

unt

ary

(ex

cep

t Cu

, Zn

)

Cla

ss 1

Clas

s 2

Vol

unta

ry

AT AT AT BE CH CZ CZ CZ CZ DE DE DK EE ES ES ES FI FR GR HU IE IE IT LT LU LV NL PL SE SK SK UK

mg/

kg d

.m.

b) Cr

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Clas

s A+

Cla

ss A

Cla

ss B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up

2: C

lass

1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 2

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 3

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Cla

ss A

Cla

ss B

Cla

ss C

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Volu

nta

ry (

exce

pt C

u, Z

n)

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Volu

nta

ry


mg/

kg d

.m.

26/01/09

16

c) Cu

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200Cl

ass

A+

Clas

s A

Clas

s B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 2

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 3

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Clas

s A

Clas

s B

Clas

s C

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Volu

ntar

y (e

xcep

t Cu,

Zn)

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Volu

ntar

y


mg/

kg d

.m.

d) Hg

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Clas

s A+

Clas

s A

Clas

s B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 2

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 3

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Clas

s A

Cla

ss B

Cla

ss C

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Volu

ntar

y (e

xcep

t Cu,

Zn)

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Volu

ntar

y


mg/

kg d

.m.


17

e) Ni

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Cla

ss A

+

Cla

ss A

Cla

ss B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up

2: C

lass

1

Gro

up

2: C

lass

2

Gro

up 2

: C

lass

3

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Cla

ss A

Cla

ss B

Cla

ss C

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Volu

nta

ry (

exce

pt

Cu

, Zn

)

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Vol

un

tary


mg/

kg d

.m.

f) Pb

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Clas

s A+

Cla

ss A

Clas

s B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 2

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 3

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Cla

ss A

Clas

s B

Cla

ss C

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Volu

ntar

y (e

xcep

t Cu,

Zn)

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Vol

unt

ary


mg/

kg d

.m.

26/01/09

18

g) Zn

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500Cl

ass

A+

Clas

s A

Cla

ss B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up

2: C

lass

1

Gro

up

2: C

lass

2

Gro

up

2: C

lass

3

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Clas

s A

Cla

ss B

Cla

ss C

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Volu

ntar

y (e

xcep

t Cu

, Zn)

Cla

ss 1

Cla

ss 2

Volu

ntar

y


mg/

kg d

.m.

h) As

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Clas

s A+

Clas

s A

Clas

s B

Gro

up 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 1

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 2

Gro

up 2

: Cla

ss 3

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Clas

s A

Clas

s B

Clas

s C

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Volu

ntar

y (e

xcep

t Cu,

Zn)

Clas

s 1

Clas

s 2

Volu

ntar

y


mg/

kg d

.m.


19

Table 2: Heavy Metal Limits (mg/kg d.m.) in European Compost Standards

Cd Crtot CrVI Cu Hg Ni Pb Zn As Country Regulation Type of standard

mg/kg d.m.

AT Compost Ord.: Class A+ (organic farming) 0.7 70 - 70 0.4 25 45 200 -

Compost Ord.: Class A (agriculture; hobby gardening) 1 70 - 150 0.7 60 120 500 -

Compost Ord.: Class B (non agricultural) limit value (only for landscaping; reclamation) (guide value)*

statutory ordinance

3 250 - 500 (400)

3 100 200 1,800 (1,200)

-

BE Royal Decree, 07.01.1998 statutory decree 1.5 70 - 90 1 20 120 300 -

BG No regulation - - - - - - - - - -

CH Ordinance on Environmentally Hazardous Substances – limit values for compost and digestate from biowaste statutory 1 100 - 100 1 30 120 400 -

CY No regulation - - - - - - - - - -

CZ statutory

Composts without sewage sludge 2 100 - 100 1 50 100 300 10

Compost with sewage sludge 2 100 - 100 1 50 100 500 10

Use for agricultural land (Group one)

Digestates 2 100 - 100 1 50 100 400 10

statutory

Class 1 2 100 - 170 1 65 200 500 10

Class 2 3 250 - 400 1.5 100 300 1200 20

Landscaping, reclamation (draft Biowaste ordinance) (group two)

Class 3 4 300 - 500 2 120 400 1500 30

DE Quality assurance RAL GZ - compost / digestate products voluntary QAS 1.5 100 - 100 1 50 150 400 -

Bio waste ordinance statutory decree

(Maximum application 30 t d.m./ha over 3 year period) Class I 1 70 - 70 0.7 35 100 300 -

26/01/09

20


mg/kg d.m.

(Maximum application 20 t d.m./ha over 3 year period)) Class II 1.5 100 - 100 1 50 150 400 -

DK Statutory Order Nr.1650; Compost after 13 Dec. 2006 statutory decree 0.8 - - 1,000 0.8 30 120/60 for

priv. gardens 4,000 25 (priv. gardens

only)

EE Env. Ministry Re. (2002.30.12; m° 87) Sludge regulation statutory - 1000 - 1000 16 300 750 2500 -

Real decree 824/2005 on fertilisers Class A 0.7 70 0 70 0.4 25 45 200 - ES

Class B 2 250 0 300 1.5 90 150 500 -

Class C

statutory

3 300 0 400 2.5 100 200 1000 -

FI Fertiliser Regulation (12/07) statutory decree 1.5 300 - 600 1 100 150 1,500 25

FR NFU 44 051 standard 3 120 300 2 60 180 600

GR KYA 114218, Hellenic Government Gazette, 1016/B/17- 11-97 [Specifications framework and general programmes for solid waste management]

statutory decree 10 510 10 500 5 200 500 2,000 15

HU Statutory rule 36/2006 (V.18) Statutory – also includes

Co: 50; Se: 5 2 100 - 100 1 50 100 -- 10

IE Licensing of treatment plants (EPA) (n.b. no sample shall exceed 1.2 times the quality limit values set)

(Compost – Class I) statutory 0.7 100 - 100 0.5 50 100 200 -

(Compost – Class II) statutory 1.5 150 - 150 1 75 150 400 -

IT Law on fertilisers (L 748/84; and: 03/98 and 217/06) for BWC/GC/SSC statutory decree 1.5 - 0.5 230 1.5 100 140 500 -

LT Regulation on sewage sludge Categ. I (LAND 20/2005) statutory 1.5 140 75 1 50 140 300 -

LU Licensing for plants 1.5 100 - 100 1 50 150 400 -

LV Regulation on licensing of waste treatment plants (n° 413/23.5.2006) – no specific compost regulation

statutory =threshold between

waste/product 3 600 2 100 150 1,500 50


21


mg/kg d.m.

NL BOOM Compost 1 50 - 60 0.3 20 100 200 15

BOOM very clean Compost terminated

31/12/2007 0.7 50 - 25 0.2 10 65 75 5

Amended National Fertiliser Act from 2008 statutory 1 50 90 0.3 20 100 290 15

PL Organic fertilisers (includes compost placed on the market) statutory 5 250 400 3 50 250 1500 15

PT Standard for compost is in preparation - - - - - - - - - -

SE Guideline values of QAS plus sewage regulations for Cu, Zn. voluntary 1 100 - 600 1 50 100 800

SK Industrial Standard STN 46 5735 Cl. 1 voluntary (Mo: 5) 2 100 100 1 50 100 300 10

Cl. 2 voluntary(Mo: 20) 4 300 400 1.5 70 300 600 20

UK Standard: PAS 100 voluntary 1.5 100 - 200 1 50 200 400 -

EU ECO Label

COM Decision (EC) n° 64/2007 eco-label to growing media

COM Decision (EC) n° 799/2006 eco-label to soil improvers

voluntary [Mo: 2; As: 10; Se: 1.5; F: 200 [only if

materials of industrial processes

are included]

1 100 - 100 1 50 100 300 10

EC Reg. n° 2092/91 Organic farming requirements statutory

0.7 70 - 70 0.4 25 45 200 -

*guide/ limit value for Cu and Zn; if the guide value in the compost is exceeded then the concentration has to be indicated on the label. Source: Questionnaires and Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC.

26/01/09

22

3.1.3 Organic Contaminants

The presence of organic contaminants related to the application of BTPs appears to be receiving significant attention at present, forming the focus of a number of studies at the recent ‘Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS 2008’. Several countries have established specific standards associated with organic contaminants in compost. Table 3 illustrates the organic contaminant limits for compost in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, and for mixed waste compost in Austria.

It should be noted that Denmark is currently looking to increase its PAH limit in line with the recently raised PAH limit for ‘non-polluted soils’ in Denmark, from 1.5 to 4.0 mg/kg d.m. In addition, countries that produce relatively large amounts of compost such as Germany, the Netherlands and Italy do not currently impose any organic-contaminant restrictions on their composts, due to the low levels of such contaminants found in their composts over a number of years. In these countries, all composts are derived from source-separated materials. Similarly, no limits are currently in place for organic contaminants in Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain or Sweden.

In Hungary, there are two means through which permission to apply BTPs to agricultural soils may be obtained: first, the producer may gain permission from the municipality’s agricultural office to use the compost on a certain area of agricultural land on an annual basis, which requires investigation of the land and soil properties and of the compost that is intended for use, but does not require measurement of the levels of the organic contaminants listed in Table 3. Second, the producer may seek to obtain a 10 year product licence by meeting the set of compost standard requirements in statutory rule No 36/2003 (including levels of organic contaminants) via only one set of tests at the beginning of this time period. It might be expected that the majority of BTP producers would opt for the 10 year method; however, in reality only 5 out of 55 compost plants in Hungary currently have a 10 year product licence due to the relatively high cost of analysis in order to meet the requirements.27

From the countries listed in Table 3, and excluding Austria where the limits refer to mixed waste compost, only Luxembourg currently produces a significant amount of compost per inhabitant, and this production comes from only four facilities. Thus, in practice, one might argue that the perception of risk associated with organic contaminants in BTPs is relatively low. This perception is also supported by a number of longer-term studies that are discussed in the remainder of this section, several of which examine the relationship between organic contaminant levels and the positive list of feedstocks specified for compost production in Section 3.1.1.

27 Questionnaire response from the Hungarian Compost Quality Assurance Association.


23

Table 3: Limit Values for Organic Contaminants in Compost

Limit value for organic contaminants (mg/kg d.m.)

Sampling Po

lych

lorin

ated

bi

phen

yls

(PCB

)

Poly

chlo

rinat

ed

dibe

nzof

uran

(P

CCD

/F)

Dio

xins

Poly

cycl

ic

arom

atic

hy

droc

arbo

ns

(PAH

)

Abso

rbab

le

orga

nic

halo

gens

(AO

X)

Hyd

roca

rbon

s

Line

ar

alky

lben

zene

su

lpho

nate

s (L

AS)

Non

ylph

enol

(N

PE)

Di (

2-et

hylh

exyl

) ph

thal

ate

(DEH

P)

AT Mixed MSW

compost only

- 1 external quality inspection per 500m3 compost produced. - Minimum quantity of compost available for sampling must be 200m3. - 3 of 4 samples must comply with limits; 1 can exceed the limits by up to 30 %.

1 - 50 ng ITEQ/kg dm

6 500 3000

BE Compost and

digestate from treated

biowaste (VLAREA

legislation)

0.8

2.3 (Naphtalene, Flouranthene, Benzo(b,k)flouranthene); 1.1 (Benzo(a)pyrene, Benzo(g,h,i)perylene, Indeno(1,2,3 c,d) pyrene); 0.9 (Phenanthrene); 0.68 (Benzo(a)anthracene); 1.7 (Chrysene).

20 (Extractable organic halogens)

1.1 (Monocyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons); 5.5 (alkanes); 0.23 (chlorinated hydrocarbons)

CZ Class 1 (Non-

Agricultural Compost)

0.02 3

Class 2 (Non-Agricultural

Compost)

0.2 6

26/01/09

24

Limit value for organic contaminants (mg/kg d.m.)

Sampling Po

lych

lorin

ated

bi

phen

yls

(PCB

)

Poly

chlo

rinat

ed

dibe

nzof

uran

(P

CCD

/F)

Dio

xins

Poly

cycl

ic

arom

atic

hy

droc

arbo

ns

(PAH

)

Abso

rbab

le

orga

nic

halo

gens

(AO

X)

Hyd

roca

rbon

s

Line

ar

alky

lben

zene

su

lpho

nate

s (L

AS)

Non

ylph

enol

(N

PE)

Di (

2-et

hylh

exyl

) ph

thal

ate

(DEH

P)

DK Biowaste compost

1 analysis per year. 3 1300 30 50

FR NFU 44-051

4 (Fluoranthene); 2.5 (Benzo(b)fluoranthene) 1.5 (Benzo(a)pyrene)

HU 36/2006

(v.18) Standard compost

Analysed once to get permission, then a licence is granted for 10 years without further controls.

0.1 5 ng/kg dm 1

100 (Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons); 0.1 (Benzopyrene)

LU Guide values for fresh and matured compost

4 analyses per year for PCB and PCCD/F. 2 analyses per year for PAH. 0.1

20 ng/kg dm

10

Note: there are currently no organic-contaminant limits for BTPs in the UK.

Sources: Questionnaire responses and Hogg, D., Barth, J., Favoino, E., Centemero, M., Caimi, V., Amlinger, F., Devliegher, W., Brinton, W. and Antler, S. (2002). Comparison of Compost Standards Within the EU, North America and Australasia. Report for the Waste and Resources Action Programme.


25

Despite the lack of standards for organic contaminants in Germany, in Bavaria, samples from both composting and digestion plants have been analysed on a case-by-case basis for organic contaminants by their Environment Agency since 1993. This low-level monitoring has been found to be sufficient to control any risk that might be associated with organic contaminants present in BTPs.

Analysis of the results from this monitoring by Riedel and Marb (presented at CODIS 2008) found that, in particular, higher PAH was found in compost/digestate derived from household biowaste (kitchen and garden waste) rather than green waste (from gardens and parks), whilst the remaining contaminants (e.g. PCDD/Fs, PCBs) showed little variation across the different feedstocks.28 However, further to this study, Stab et al.29 noted that concentrations for PCBs and PAHs were generally lower in composts and digestates than the concentrations allowed for agricultural use of sewage sludge in Germany, and Riedel and Marb noted that the levels of most contaminants (including PAH from green waste) were decreasing over time. 28

Forming part of the long-term study by Timmerman et al. (2008) on the Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture in Germany,30 Deller et al.31 found that organic contaminant contents in compost-treated soils were so low over the 9 to 12 year duration of the study that an increase in levels in the soil from repeated compost application could not be detected until the end of the test period. This report concluded that the risk of organic contaminant loading from compost application is low and can be controlled by soil analyses and by knowing the background level in the soil in question.

Finally, a study examining the compost and digestate outputs from 16 plants in Baden-Württemberg in Germany by Kuch et al. (2007) also found that the risk associated with organic contaminants was low.32 Values for key organic contaminants such as PCB and PAH predominantly fell below those limit values detailed in Table 3, with overall PAH levels only exceeding the strict Danish level (3 mg/kg d.m.) in very few cases (this level is so low that Danish green waste compost plants also find it difficult to achieve the standard).

28 Riedel, H. and Marb, C. (2008). Heavy Metals and Organic Contaminants in Bavarian Composts – an Overview. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

29 Stäb, J., Kuch, B., Rupp, S., Fischer, K., Kranert, M. and Metzger, J. W. (2008). Determination of Organic Contaminants in Compost and Digestates in Baden-Württemberg, South-West Germany. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008. 30 Timmermann, F., Kluge, R. and Bouldan, R. (2008). Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture - Beneficial Crop Cultivation Effects and Potential Risks. Research Results of a Long Term Study in Germany, Final Report.

31 Deller, B., Kluge, R., Mokry, M., Bolduan, R. and Trenkle, A. (2008). Effects of Mid-Term Application of Compost on Agricultural Soils in Field Trials of Practical Importance: Possible Risks. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

32 Kuch, B., Rupp, S., Fischer, K., Kranert, M. and Metzger, J. W. (2007) Determination of Organic Contaminants in Composts and Digestates in the State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, Forschungsbericht FZKA-BWPLUS, Förderkennzeichen BWR 240246.

26/01/09

26

Thus, the combined German reports have been able to take the view that basic monitoring of the situation as undertaken by the Environment Agency supports the view that the risk associated with organic contaminants is minimal.

Alongside studies in Germany, details of an experimental study undertaken in Switzerland were also given at CODIS 2008; Kupper33 found that ranges of contaminants were between 0.6 and 12.5 mg/kg d.m. for PAHs, 0.009 and 0.1 mg/kg d.m. for PCBs and 0.5 and 21.0 µg/kg d.m. for PCDD/Fs. 25 % of the samples analysed exceeded the guide value defined in the Swiss Ordinance on the reduction of risks linked to chemical products. However, this study also noted that a large source of organic contaminants was from atmospheric deposition rather than compost application, and that eco-toxicity results indicated minimal, if any, adverse effects due to the application of compost.

Brändli et al. (2005) reviewed 25 studies of compost and their feedstocks. Seven feedstocks were covered by the analysis: kitchen waste, organic household waste (kitchen and garden waste combined), green waste (from parks and gardens), foliage (plant leaves only), shrub clippings, bark and grass.34 The highest concentrations of PAHs, PCBs and PCDD/Fs were found in foliage, with lowest levels being found in bark, shrub clippings and grass, followed by kitchen waste, organic household waste, and green waste. It is important to stress that in all cases, these pollutants were found in low concentrations, and that rather than highlighting a perceived ‘risk’, the study sought to understand the fate of different organic poillutants, with a view to reducing their presence in compost still further. An interesting observation from the study was that the composts derived from the different feedstocks indicated that lighter PAHs were volatilised and degraded in the composting process, but heavier PAHs and PCBs did not suffer such a fate. The authors noted:

The PAH or PCB concentrations can sometimes be relatively elevated, probably due to inputs from traffic emissions, ashes, or impurities. Specific contamination might also occur due to pesticide application. Urban feedstock and compost was generally elevated in PAH, PCB, and PCDD/F levels in comparison with rural samples. This corresponds to the pattern observed in other environmental compartments. Seasonal differences were observed for PAHs, PCBs, and PCDD/Fs, the concentrations generally being highest during summer. This is in accordance with the seasonal variation observed in the environment for PCBs, but not for PAHs and PCDD/Fs.

3.1.4 Hygienisation Hygiene-related standards are used in compost production in order to prevent the spreading of human, animal and plant diseases. Provisions for the exclusion of potential pathogenic microorganisms within process and quality requirements are established on two levels:

33 Kupper, T., Brändli, R. C., Bucheli, T. D., Stämpfli, C., Zennegg, M., Berger, U., Edder, P., Pohl, M., Niang, F., Iozza, S., Müller, J., Schaffner, C., Schmid, P., Huber, S., Ortelli, D., Becker-Van Slooten, K., Mayer, J., Bachmann, H-J., Stadelmann, F. X. and Tarradellas, J. (2008) Organic Pollutants in Compost and Digestate: Occurrence, Fate and Impacts. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

34 Brändli, R. C., Bucheli, T. D., Kupper, T., Furrer, R., Stadelmann, F. X. and Tarradellas, J. (2005) Persistent Organic Pollutants in Source-separated Compost and its Feedstock Materials – A review of Field Studies, Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 34, May-June 2005, pp735-60.


27

Directly: setting minimum requirements for pathogenic indicator organisms in the final product

Indirectly: documentation and recording of the process illustrating compliance with required process parameters (HACCP concepts, time-temperature regime, pathogen reduction potential, black and white zone separation, hygienisation/sanitisation in closed reactors etc.).

The Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) n° 1774/2001 (ABPR) and amendment 208/2006, provide hygienisation rules for composting and biogas plants which treat animal by-products. Most often cited in this context are the rules, given in the amended Annex VI, which state:

“Category 3 material used as raw material in a biogas plant equipped with a pasteurisation/hygienisation unit must be submitted to the following minimum requirements:

(a) maximum particle size before entering the unit: 12 mm;

(b) minimum temperature in all material in the unit: 70 °C; and

(c) minimum time in the unit without interruption: 60 minutes.

However, category 3 milk, colostrums and milk products may be used without pasteurisation/hygienisation as raw material in a biogas plant, if the competent authority does not consider them to present a risk of spreading any serious transmissible disease.

Category 3 material used as raw material in a composting plant must be submitted to the following minimum requirements:

⇒ maximum particle size before entering the composting reactor: 12 mm; ⇒ minimum temperature in all material in the reactor: 70 °C; and ⇒ minimum time in the reactor at 70 °C (all material): 60 minutes.”

As regards the hygienisation rules for Category 3 ABP, the ABPR states:

However, the competent authority may authorise the use of other standardized process parameters provided an applicant demonstrates that such parameters ensure minimising of biological risks. That demonstration shall include a validation, which shall be carried out in accordance with points (a) to (f).

Of particular relevance to the more mature composting industries in the EU, points (a) to (f) detail that process validation ensuring minimal biological risks can be exercised as an alternative treatment to the fixed time-temperature regime. The process must result in a reduction of 5 log10 of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg (775W, H2S negative) and infectivity titre of thermo-resistant viruses such as parvovirus by at least 3 log10, whenever such viruses are identified as a relevant hazard.

In addition, indicator organisms for the approval of the process and final product are specified. For the hygienisation process, Escherichia coli or Enterococcae are to be used. A maximum number of bacteria in 1 g is set at 1,000 for 4 out of 5 samples and only in 1 sample can the bacteria number can be between 1,000 and 5,000. For the hygiene status of the product, Salmonella must be absent in 25 g.

26/01/09

28

Annex VI allows for some deviations from the above rules. When manure or digestive tract content are the only ABP material being treated, the competent authority may authorise the use of different specific requirements, provided that they do not consider that the material presents a risk of spreading disease and that the residues/compost are considered to be unprocessed material. In addition, the case of catering waste has always been a special one as far as the ABPR is concerned. Catering waste is defined in the ABP as all food waste originating in both commercial and household kitchens/facilities. From the outset, the ABPR effectively allowed Member States to set their own rules regarding Category 3 catering waste which was not from means of transport operating internationally (Article 6(2)(g)). Thus, where catering waste is the only ABP being used as raw material in the composting or AD plant, the competent authority may authorise specific requirements other than those laid down in Annex VI of the ABPR. Further discussion around hygienisation rules for catering waste according to the ABPR and amendment 208/2006 is presented in Appendix A.3.0.

It is important to note that the ABP Regulation is currently being amended further, with a draft proposal and a working document with annexes currently under discussion among stakeholders within the European community. It has been suggested that the existing exemption for catering waste, giving Member States the possibility of setting national processing rules for catering waste, will be maintained.35

The current hygienisation methods subsequently undertaken in various MS specifically for catering wastes are given in Table 4. The general BTP regulations associated with germinating weeds and plant propagules are also given in this table. A number of countries, particularly those with more mature composting markets, have chosen the option of maintaining national regulations and process validation for catering wastes, rather than implementing the ‘12 mm particle size at 70ºC for 1 h’ processing standard set out under the ABPR. National regulations have been maintained mainly because in practice, composting and digestion plants have found it difficult to implement the Annex VI standard, particularly, in the case of compost plants, the 12 mm particle size requirement (see Section 5.1 for further details).

The Table shows that all MSs have some test for pathogens, though the indicator organisms vary. However, with the exception of the Netherlands, the tests are set in terms of the presence of a given pathogen rather than in terms of the level of reduction in the presence of the pathogen, which is how the desired “effect” on pathogens is set out in Annex VI Ch II 13a (d) of the ABPR.

35 Amlinger, F. (2008) Implementation of the Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) no 1774/2001 in EU Member States, Presentation at Orbit2008, 13-15th October 2008, Wageningen, The Netherlands.


29

Table 4: Provisions for the Exclusion of Pathogens and Germinating Weeds and Plant Propagules in the EU for Catering Wastes.

I n d i r e c t

TIME- TEMPERATURE Regime

°C %H2O Part.size Time

(mm)

D i r e c t m e t h o d s

Application Pathogens /weeds Product (P)/ approval of

area technology (AT)

land reclam. Salmonella sp. absent

agriculture Salmonella sp.

E. coli

Absent

if positive result recommendation for the safe use

sacked, sport/ play ground

Salmonella sp. E. coli, Camylobacter, Listeria sp.

All absent

technical use --- no requirements

AT

Statutory ‘Guideline – State of the Art of Composting’

6 time/temp. regimes are described at min. 55°C, 1 to 5 turnings during a 10 – 14 days thermophilic process

horticulture/ substrates

weeds/propagules germination ≤ 3 plants/l

BE 70 1 h Salmonella sp.

Escherichia coli OR Enterococcae

Weeds

Absent in 25 g

< 1000/g in 4 of 5 samples 1000-5000/g in 1 of 5 samples

absent

55

21 d

CH

Compost (mainly

windrow)

Or equivalent process guaranteeing same hygienisation (e.g. pasteurise).

65 7 d Compost (mainly in-

vessel) Or equivalent process guaranteeing same hygienisation (e.g. pasteurise).

<53

14 d

Plus post-maturation of:

Digestate Either:

55

60

10 h

5.5 h

Or: >53 24 h

Or: Equivalent process guaranteeing same hygienisation (e.g. pasteurise).

26/01/09

30

I n d i r e c t



(mm)




55 21 d CZ

Biowaste

ordinance 65 5 d

Specifically composts

without sewage sludge

45 5 d

Salmonella spp.

E. coli and Enterococcae

Absent in 50 g for 5 samples

<103 CFU36/g in 2 samples, <50 CFU/g in remaining 3 out of 5 samples.

DE

Biowaste ordinance in

general

55 40 14 d

Or in-vessel composting

60 40 7 d

Or open windrow

composting

65 40 7 d

Process validation37 Salmonella senft. Plasmodoph. Brass.

Nicotiana virus 1 Tomato seeds

Compost production:

Salmonella senft.

weeds/propagules

absent

infection index: ≤ 0.5

guide value bio-test: ≤ 8/plant

germination rate/sample: ≤ 2%

absent in 50 g sample

germination ≤2 plants/l

DK

Controlled sanitised Compost

55 14 d

Thermophile AD

52

53.5

55

10 h

8 h

6 h

Separate reactor

before/after Thermophile

AD

55

60

65

5.5 h

2.5 h

1.0 h

Separate reactor

before/after Mesophile AD

55

60

65

7.5 h

3.5 h

1.5 h

Salmonella sp. E. coli, Enterococcae

Absent

< 100 CFU/g FM

70 12 1 h ES

(Only applies where source-separated ABP waste i.e. mainly in Catalunya)

All Salmonella sp. E. coli

absent in 25 g

< 1000 MPN/g

36 CFU = colony forming units

37 Two approvals at the beginning (one in Winter) for windrow composting


31

I n d i r e c t



(mm)




60 40 14 d FI

65 40 7 d

All Salmonella sp. E. Coli Several pathogens causing plant diseases

Absent < 1000 CFU/g FM

Absent

Gardening/ retailer

Salmonella sp. Helminth Ova

Absent in 1 g

Absent in 1 g

FR

(For all plants that use ABP

as input material)

55 3 d

Other uses Salmonella sp. Helminth Ova

Absent in 25 g

Absent in 1.5 g

HU 70 12 1 h Salmonella sp.

Escherichia coli OR Enterococcae

Absent in 25 g

< 1000/g in 4 of 5 samples 1000-5000/g in 1 of 5 sample

IE 60 400 2 x 2 d

IT

Decree 162/06-

“Environment Act”, as

modified by Decree 4/08.

55 3d

Fertil. law All Salmonella sp.

Enterobacteriaceae

Faecal Streptococcus

Nematodes, Trematodes, Cestodes


≤ 1.0 x 103 CFU/g

≤ 1.0 x 103 MPN/g

all absent in 50 g sample

LU

Biowaste Ordinance

55 40 14 d All Process validation38 (every 1, 5 year): Salmonella senft.

absent

38 Two approvals (one in Winter) for windrow composting

26/01/09

32

I n d i r e c t



(mm)




In-vessel composting

60 40 7 d

Open windrow composting

65 40 7 d

Plasmodoph. Brass.

Nicotiana virus 1 Tomato seeds

Compost production:

Salmonella senft.

weeds/propagules

infection index: ≤ 0.5

guide value bio-test: ≤ 8/plant

germination rate/sample: ≤ 2%


germination ≤2 plants/l

LV 70

12 1 h All Salmonella sp. E. coli

absent in 25 g

< 2500 CFU/g

NL

All related to process validation rather than specific time-temp regime. Process validation and spot tests once a year have to show the 5log10 pathogen reduction according to EC 208/2006. The temperatures recorded for the rest of the year must show compliance with the process validation.

All Salmonella sp. and

E. coli before screening within the process, and of the final product stock piles.

Weeds

4 analyses per year

Results have to show reduction.

germinating plants: ≤ 2 plants/l

PL 70 12 1 h All applications

Ascaris Trichuris Toxocara Salmonella sp.

all absent

60-62 48 h

Followed by:

50 11-13 days

PT (LIPOR Compost

plant)

With the whole process repeated twice.

See ABP regulation. Hygienisation process undertaken at this compost plant ensures meets regulation number 1774/2002.

SE

a) Composting.

Repeat three times for

open windrows

(temperature 3 times, 2 turnings in

between)

55

60

65

70

7 d

5 d

3 d

1 d

b) Digestion

55

Only shredd-ing, no specific particle size

10 h dwell time, 7 d

Salmonella sp.

E. coli, Enterococcae

Weeds

Absent

< 1000/g in 4 of 5 samples 1000-5000/g in 1 of 5 sample

germinating plants: ≤ 2 plants/l


33

I n d i r e c t



(mm)




(There are further differing requirements depending on the composting/ AD process type and risk material)

UK

Composting (closed

reactor)

60 400 2 x 2 d

AD 57 50 5 h

Composting or AD

70 60 1 h

Composting (housed

windrow)

60 400 8 d39

All applications

Salmonella ssp. E. coli

Absent in 25 g

< 1000 CFU/g

Source: Questionnaire responses; Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008) Compost Production and Use in the EU, Report for the European Commission DG/JRC; Amlinger, F. (2008) Implementation of the Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) no 1774/2001 in EU Member States, Presentation at Orbit 2008, 13-15th October 2008, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

In comparing pre- and post-ABPR regulations, countries such as Denmark, France, Germany and Italy have all maintained their national pre-ABPR time-temperature regimes for catering waste. In addition, following amendment 208/2006, the Netherlands has developed its own process validation and corresponding sampling regime which allows the spot test method to be used, in order to show a 5 log10 pathogen reduction in the BTPs produced from the plants.

Notably, compost hygienisation in Austria was an exception at pre-ABPR, with no minimum time-temperature specified. 10 years of experience studying Enterobacteriaceae gave no evidence of any compost-derived disease issues in practice. However, as a direct result of the ABPR, the Austrian Guideline “State of the Art of Composting” subsequently issued by the Ministry for the Environment, in agreement with the Ministry of Health, recognised a set of 6 different time-temperature regimes for catering wastes, which are detailed in Table 5.

39 During which windrow must be turned at least 3 times in no less than 2 day intervals.

26/01/09

34

Table 5: Austrian Hygienisation Requirements

Minimum Temperature Duration – Records

Open Windrows +/- forced aeration

55 °C 4 hours + after each of 5 turnings; continuous records

55 °C Records once on working days + 5 turnings within 10 days

60 °C 3 x 3 days + 2 turnings connected within 2 weeks; Records once on working days

65 °C 2 x 3 days + 2 turning within 2 weeks; Records once on working days

Enclosed and in-vessel systems with forced aeration

55 °C 4 days within 10 days; continuous records

65 °C 3 days within 10 days; continuous records

Two phases of the composting process are considered to be of equal significance in meeting hygienisation requirements within the Austrian Regulation:

Thermal hygienisation guarantees a relative reduction of pathogenic organisms stemming from the source materials; and

The subsequent stabilisation and maturation phase ensures the microbiological stabilisation of the final product via decomposition of the substrate, reduced potential (less optimal conditions) for growth of enteric microorganisms, and by shifting the competitive microbial population in favour of typical soil-borne (i.e. non-pathogenic) species.

This concept is also reflected in the Dutch ABPR approach, which looks for the reduction in pathogens present by comparing their presence in the maturation phase of the compost before screening with their subsequent presence in the end product stock-pile.

Only Belgium, Hungary, Latvia and Poland make use of the 70ºC for 1 h ABPR hygienisation process for all ABP input materials, including catering wastes. For Belgium/Flanders however, the catering waste regulation is not considered relevant for the majority of plants whose feedstock is vegetable, fruit and garden (VFG) waste, with animal by-products excluded in the separate collection of biowaste.

For the remaining Category 3 waste (i.e. plants not solely accepting catering wastes), the following countries have fully-implemented the Annex VI ABP regulations (i.e. 70ºC for 1 h or equivalent process validation):

Austria (with the exception of former foodstuff that has not been in contact with raw meat. This can be collected and treated following the national rules for catering waste);

Belgium;

Czech Republic;

Finland;


35

Germany;

Hungary;

Ireland;

Italy;

Latvia;

Luxembourg;

Netherlands;

Poland;

Spain;

Sweden; and

United Kingdom.

Likewise for manure, the ABP regulations are followed in Belgium, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, the Netherlands and Sweden; in the UK the 70ºC for 1 hour standard has to be followed only where the manure is to be exported from the farm. In Austria, no such requirements have been set for manure.

3.1.5 Physical Impurities

Impurities in compost (such as plastics, metals and glass) need to be controlled where the input material originates from households, gardens and small businesses. Source-separation is a major contributing factor in reducing such impurities, but the quality of the collection system, combined with pre-screening and other separation technologies at the composting plant, in conjunction with final screening of the compost product (including, sometimes, wind-sifting and magnetic separation) determines the overall level of physical impurities present in the output material.

Plastics, metals and glass are the three main impurities currently controlled through compost standards. Table 6 lists the measures currently used by the MS. Limits vary according to the country in question. For example, Germany, Latvia and Spain set the impurity limit as a maximum concentration of the sum of plastics, metals and glass particles with a particle size > 2 to 5 mm. In Italy and Austria, specific limitations are set for plastics, metals and glass individually, with Austria also applying limits for more than one particle size for plastics. In addition to the specific particle sizes and amounts of impurities, a CEN standard for the identification of impurities has also been drafted within the project Horizontal.40

In the Netherlands, a ‘difficult to achieve’ limit of less than 0.2% glass particles greater than 2 mm is applied to composts that will be used in crop soils. This limit has been applied primarily for practical reasons, to reduce potential problems associated with manual

40 ECN (2007) Soil, Sludge and Treated Biowaste – Determination of Impurities and Stones, European Standard, http://www.ecn.nl/docs/society/horizontal/BT_TF151_WI_CSS99049_Impurities_1332007(E).pdf

26/01/09

36

harvesting and food preparation, but it also reduces the subsequent risk associated with human consumption.

The plastic content of compost has also been limited in a number of countries, despite contributing a very low percentage of the overall weight. In Germany, plastic content has been limited because it has been found to be a highly-visible nuisance on agricultural land. Plastics tend to stay on the surface of soils and, being lightweight, are transported with surface water to accumulate at drainage points.

Table 6: Limitations for the Content of Impurities in Compost in National Compost Standards

Country Impurities ∅ Mesh size Limit values

% d.m. (m/m)

AT Compost ordinance

Total; agriculture Total; land reclamation Total; technical use Plastics; agriculture Plastics; land reclamation Plastics; technical use Plastics; agric. excl. arable land Plastics; technical use Metals; agriculture

Glass; agriculture, technical use

2 mm > 2 mm > 2 mm > 2 mm > 2 mm > 2 mm > 20 mm > 20 mm ---

---

≤ 0.5 % < 1 % < 2 % < 0.2 % < 0.4 % < 1 % < 0.02 % < 0.2 % < 0.2 %

< 0.2 %

BE Royal Decree for fertilisers, soil improvers and substrates

Total Stones

> 2 mm > 5 mm

< 0.5 % < 2 %

CH

Metals

Glass

Plastics

Stones

Plastic and aluminium sheeting

>2 mm

>2 mm

>2 mm

>5 mm

>2 mm

< 0.5 %

< 0.5 %

< 0.5 %

< 5 %

< 1 %

CZ Act on fertilisers Total (glass, metals, plastic), group 1: agriculture

> 2 mm < 2%

Biowaste ordinance Total (glass, metals, plastic), group 2: land reclamation > 2 mm < 2 %

DE Bio waste ordinance RAL quality assurance

Glass, plastics, metal Stones

Uses an Area Index: all impurities in a sample are collected on a DIN A4 piece of paper and scanned using software. The covering of the paper by the total impurities should be less than 25 %. Stones are not considered impurities.

> 2 mm > 5 mm

< 0.5 % < 5 %

ES Total impurities (glass, metals, plastic) > 2 mm < 3 %

FI Fertil. legislation Total --- < 0.5 %

FR NFU 44-051 Plastic films Other plastics Metals

> 5 mm > 5 mm > 2 mm

< 0.3 % < 0.8 % < 2.0 %

HU Statutory No dangerous impurities present --- ---

IE EPA waste license Total; compost class 1 & 2

Total; low grade compost/MBT

Stones

> 2 mm

> 2 mm

> 5 mm

≤ 0.5 %

≤ 3 %

≤ 5 %


37

Country Impurities ∅ Mesh size Limit values

% d.m. (m/m)

IT Fertil. law Plastics Plastics Other inert material

< 3.33 mm > 3.33 < 10 mm < 3.33 mm

< 0.45 %. < 0.05 %. < 0.9 %

LU Glass, plastics, metal Stones

> 2 mm > 5 mm

< 0.5 % < 5 %

LV Cabinet Regulation No. 530 , 25.06.2006 Total (glass, metal, plastics) > 4 mm < 0.5 %

NL Fertiliser Act with new certification system since

01-2008.

Total Glass (when application is to crops) Glass Stones

> 2 mm > 2 mm > 20 mm > 5 mm

< 0.5 % < 0.2 % 0 < 1 %

SE Voluntary standard Total (glass, metal, plastics) > 2 mm <0.5 %

UK PAS 100 voluntary standard

Total (Herein included plastic)

Stones: other than ‘mulch’ Stones: in ‘mulch compost’

> 2 mm

> 4 mm > 4 mm

< 0.5 % (< 0.25 %)

< 8 % < 16 %

Source: Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC.

3.1.6 Genetically-Modified Organisms

The Member States of the EU do not currently set standards or regulations associated with genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). Research recently undertaken by SEPA41 into the fate of GMOs during thermophilic composting has found that the hygienisation process appears sufficient to destroy GMOs, with details as follows:

There was no evidence of E.Coli K12 pGLO survival during thermophilic composting when operated under optimal conditions (temperature ≥ 65 ºC for a retention time of 6± 2 days).

Temperature was the main factor for survival in non-autoclaved compost.

Genetically-modified organisms do not survive during in-vessel composting when temperatures are held above 65 ºC for periods longer than 5 h.

There was no evidence of marker gene (DNA) survival during thermophilic composting when operated under optimal conditions (temperature ≥ 65 ºC for a retention time of 6± 2 days). Lab evidence does however suggest that transgenic DNA has the potential to survive for longer periods than the marker genes themselves, though both were unable to survive during in-vessel composting when temperatures were held above 65 ºC for periods longer than 2 days.

41 Schwarz-Linek, J., Gartland, J., Irvine, R., Gartland, K. and Collier, P. (2007). Fate of Genetically Modified Micro-Organisms during Thermophilic Composting. University of Abertay, Dundee.

26/01/09

38

No evidence was found for horizontal gene transfer between E. coli K12 pGLO and indigenous microorganisms under chosen conditions during thermophilic in-vessel composting and in lab-based survival studies at 65°C, 40°C and 22°C over periods up to 68 days.

This work appears to arrive at similar conclusions to those of German studies reported in a study for WRAP.42 The report noted:

The German Compost Quality Organisation (BGK) carried out tests in July 2004. None of the DNA sequences typical of GMOs have been detected in any of the analysed samples of compost.

Additional investigations regarding the composting of transgenic plants, carried out by the Federal Institute for Agriculture (FAL) at Braunschweig, Germany (and ordered by the Federal Ministry of Environment), demonstrated that the plant DNA and also the recombinant genes were decomposed during the hot decomposition phase and were eliminated as a result. Another two year long study on genetically modified corn plants also showed that recombinant genes were eliminated during the hot decomposition phase within 8 days. Following this, the recombinant DNA sequence was detected neither in tomatoes nor in mushrooms which were cultivated using the compost.

According to these researchers, high temperatures in composting plants appear to induce an intensive biological degradation in the decomposition process. It is argued that germinable materials (seeds, pollen etc.) are decomposed during the composting process in such a way that further distribution of genetically modified plant genes is difficult, if not impossible.

In general, therefore, the GMO issue is no longer regarded as an argument against the use of compost in organic farming in Germany.

3.2 Use in Agriculture This section focuses on the frameworks within which source-segregated compost and anaerobic digestion outputs can be applied to agricultural land in the EU. Composting is described in the Waste Framework Directive (EC) no 442/1975 as a recycling method for organic substances (R4), and can be considered as a form of ‘land treatment resulting in benefit to agriculture or ecological improvement’ (R10). The degree to which outputs from composting are beneficial for agricultural use is discussed in Amlinger et al. (2007);43 benefits include:

An increase in soil organic matter, and hence an increase in soil quality during long-term (6 years or more) compost application trials, particularly when applying mature rather than fresh compost to the soil;

42 Hogg, D., Barth, J., Schleiss, K. and Favoino, E. (2007) Dealing with Food Waste in the UK, Report to WRAP, March 2007.

43 Amlinger, F., Peyr, S., Geszti, J., Dreher, P., Weinfurtner, K. and Nortcliff, S. (2007). Beneficial Effects of Compost Application on Fertility and Productivity of Soils: Literature Study. Report produced for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria.


39

An increase in organic matter and nutrient transformation efficiency by enhancing soil biodiversity and microbial activity in continuously compost-fertilised soils;

After 3 to 6 years of application, a positive yield effect on a variety of crops and also a more stable yield (with compost able to balance yearly climatic variations) compared to unfertilised and mineral-fertiliser control plots;

A constant increase in total and available stock of macro-nutrients and calcium in the soil, enabling the substitution of mineral fertilisers for compost; and

Suppression of soil-borne plant diseases by mature compost application. Compost must be mature (i.e. sufficiently stabilised) to ensure that pathogens are not stimulated by readily assimilable carbon.

However, in order to address the potential adverse effects of PTEs and organic contaminant accumulation in soils, even though the standards in place in many countries appear to give considerable comfort in this regard, it is not uncommon for MS to place restrictions on the use of compost in agriculture. This Section details the current restrictions on the type of land to which the various classes of compost in the MS can be applied, and the rates of compost application related predominantly to either heavy metal and/or nutrient loading of the soils. The degree to which these regulations and those discussed previously in Section 3.1 are based on risk assessment data is also discussed in this section.

3.2.1 Type of Land

For the majority of countries within the EU, the main restriction for application of compost on agricultural land is simply to ensure that the compost meets the standards/regulations outlined in Section 3.1. However, for those countries where a series of compost classes has been determined, such classes are typically related in part to restrictions on the types of land to which they can be applied, as detailed in Table 7.

From the questionnaire replies, only Denmark places a restriction on application related specifically to crop type, and this restriction only applies to the use of sewage sludge on edible crops. It should also be noted that Germany has banned the application of catering waste derived compost on pasture land. This ban took effect as part of the German Biowaste Ordinance (1998), and originally related to discussions around organic pollutants and possible risks associated with impurities such as glass, with no reference to ABP in this decision.44 However, in the present revision of the Ordinance (the final version is due in 2009), reference to a ban on the use of catering waste derived BTPs on pasture land has been removed and replaced with the requirement for a three week waiting period prior to application of catering waste derived compost. In addition, the ban has also been removed from the final version of the German Fertiliser Ordinance, which includes BTPs. Hence although the ban on application of BTPs to pasture land has not been formally rescinded in

44 When interviewing three composting plants and one farmer’s cooperation in Bavaria, we were told that 5-45 % of green compost produced by these plants is used on pasture land, with farmers not seeing any big problems with the future use of ABP-derived compost on their pasture land.

26/01/09

40

any legally binding text at the moment, there are clear indications that the ban is likely to be lifted in the near future.45

Table 7 Restrictions in the Land Use Type on which Compost can be Applied.

Country Compost Class/Quality Land Use Type

Category 1 material (Biowaste) and Bark Compost, of A+ Quality (lowest heavy metal limits) Organic farming

Category 1 material (Biowaste), Category 2 material (quality sewage sludge, related to heavy metal limits) and Bark Compost, of A+ and A Quality (low heavy metal limits)

Regular fertilization on agricultural land (arable land, pasture land, vegetable production, vineyards, hop culture, orchards), reclamation and erosion measures on agricultural land, horticulture, plantations, as a substrate constituent

AT

Category 3 material (mixed MSW i.e. not source-separated), of Quality B (highest heavy metal limits)

Only non-agricultural application (i.e. landscaping and land reclamation)

Group 1: Agricultural Compost Agricultural application

CZ Group 2: Waste Compost Classes 1-3

Non-agricultural application – organic contaminants must be within limits given in Section 3.1.3 for such application.

Fresh and Mature Compost

Food and non-food application. Fresh Compost used mainly in agriculture. No catering waste derived compost can be applied to pasture land. In several food processing industries, only quality assured compost products allowed:

- Sugar beet - Organic farming

Substrate Compost Constituent for growing media

DE and LU

Mulch Compost Soil coverage

DK Sewage Sludge NOT to be used on edible crops

EE Stabilised ‘sludge compost’ is the only type that faces restrictions in application. Details not given in questionnaire

NL Certified compost, with glass particles of > 2mm at less than 0.2 %.

Only certified compost can be used for soil-grown crops e.g. potatoes, sugar beet, some vegetables.

Level 1 (produced by a plant which processes organic waste with/without low risk waste from animals)

Food production

SE

Level 2 (produced by a plant which processes waste for use in non-food areas). Non-food production

Class 1 Agricultural use - without restrictions except consideration of implementing good farming practice

Class 2

Agricultural use - with restrictions; cannot be used in water protection zones, in fields where crops for direct human consumption are grown or on fields with fodder crops (except after the last use in autumn)46

SI

Class 3 Not suitable for agriculture

45 Communication with Josef Barth 16/01/2009.

46 Mihelič, R., Sušin, J., Jagodic, A. and Leskošek, M. (2006) Slovene Guidelines for Expert Based Fertilization in a Light of Cross Compliance Rules, Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 87, 109-119.


41

Country Compost Class/Quality Land Use Type

Class 1 (classified according to quality criteria for humidity, combustible substances, total nitrogen, C/N ratio, pH level, indecomposable additions, whole homogeneity, PTEs)

Agricultural application

SK

Class 2 (higher presence of PTEs in particular thus cannot be registered as fertiliser and therefore limited application)

Non-agricultural applications e.g. landscaping and private gardens

Source: Compiled using information mainly from questionnaires and from Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC.

3.2.2 Application Rates

The basic restrictions relating to the use of compost in agriculture typically relate to the permissible quantities of compost at a maximum heavy metal content that can be applied either per year or over a number of years. In addition, restrictions and/or best agricultural practice also increasingly take into account the maximum nutrient requirements of the crop and the soil-nutrient balance over time. With high quality standards now in place in most of Europe, and legislation such as the EU Nitrates Directive, the nutrient content of compost (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus) has become increasingly important in determining application rates. For example, in 2008 the standards for compost application to agricultural land were withdrawn in the Netherlands. The use of compost on agricultural land in this country is now regulated only by standards relating to nitrogen and phosphorus. Table 8 summarises the current key restrictions and associated regulations for the application of compost in the EU.

26/01/09

42

Table 8: Regulatory Systems of Restrictions for the Application of Composts in the EU

Regulations/Frameworks Compost Application Rate Specified

Agriculture Non-Agriculture Nutrient Application Rate Specified Other Key Application Rate

Limitations

Good Practice of Fertilisation Framework

NH4-N < 1 %

Organic N >99 %

9 % of the TN applied with compost can be accounted as “N-Loss” during application.

N-efficiency on the 1st year of application is 10 % of TN applied (minus the 9 % application losses).

Nitrate Action Programme as part of the Austrian Water Act

In principle an individual permit is required if more than 175 kg (arable land) or 210 kg N/ha (grassland) are applied. In practice, programme provides a detailed list for a full range of crops and yield expectations where higher N applications are allowed.

Solid and liquid manure application is restricted to 170 kg TN/ha*y as a mean value relative to the entire agricultural farmland.

Application of compost is not allowed between 30th November and 15th February.

Application of N-containing fertiliser (including compost) is not allowed on water-saturated, frozen or snow-covered soil.

Land reclamation: 400 or 200 t d.m./ha*y within 10 years depending on quality class

AT

Compost Ordinance

Requires the compost producer to put on the product information “max. 8 t d.m./ha*y on a 5 year basis” (irrespective of heavy metal limits).

Non-food regular application: 20 or 40 t d.m./ha*y within 3 years depending on quality class

EC > 3 mS/cm (excluded from marketing in bags and for private gardening)

BE Flanders

Royal Decree for Fertilisers, Soil Improvers and Substrates; Fertiliser Regulation and VLAREA

As long as the compost meets the VLAREA heavy metal standards, it can be applied at a rate of 2 t d.m./ha*y or 6 t d.m./ha*3y.

Fertiliser Regulation limits N and P (following the nitrate directive) i.e. maximum 170 kg N/ha/y. N and P availability are taken into account when

Accompanying document with user information is obligator.

Nutrient content is the first limiting factor, but secondary


43



Limitations

Waste Regulation setting application limits, with availability in the first year deemed to be 10 % of N in a green waste compost and 20 % of N is a VFG compost, and 50 % of P for both types of compost.

to this there are also load limitations for heavy metals.

CH

Ordinance on Environmentally Hazardous Substances, Annex 4.5, par. 322

Maximum 25 t d.m./ha over 3 years.

CY No statutory regulations for application on agricultural land – voluntary guidelines only.

CZ

Biowaste Ordinance, Waste Act (2008), Fertiliser Law, Government regulation no. 103/2003 on NVZ

Group 2: 200 t d.m/ha. in 10 years

Application according good practice – part of the decision on registration of the BTPs is their recommendation for application, which is in part based on nutrient content.

Nitrates directive-TN application limits of organic fertilisers in Nitrate Vulnerable Zones (NVZ)

Class 1: 20 t d.m./ha within 3 years.

DE Biowaste Ordinance (BioAbfV 1998); Soil Protection Ordinance (BbodSchV 1999); Fertiliser Ordinance (DÜMV, 2003)

Class 2: 30 t d.m. within 3 years.

10-65 t d.m./ha/y depending on use

Limitation according to Biowaste Ordinance, but application also has to consider crop rotations and soil conditions.

Some food processing industries only allow quality assured compost.

For heavy metals, there is an increasing tendency towards

t i ti f th li d l d

26/01/09

44



Limitations

65 t d.m./ha can also be applied in one-off applications such as agricultural soil restoration projects.

DK (EU Nitrate Directive) Maximum 10 t d.m./ha*y In private gardens limit imposed on Pb and As applications.

Maximum 170 kg N/ha/y, maximum 30 kg P/ha/y.

ES Real Decree 824/2005 on Fertiliser Products, Decree 36/2008 on NVZ.

Class C compost (mixed waste compost): 5 t d.m./ha*y

In NVZ the maximum application rate is 170 kg N/ha/y. This limit also applies to all organically-grown crops.

Farming: 400 kg sol. P per 5 years 6 g Cd load/ha during 4 years

Horticulture: 600 kg sol. P per 5 years FI Fertilising Regulation 12/07; Lannoiteasetus

Landscape gardening: 1250 kg sol N load during 5 years, 400 kg sol. P per 5 years

15 g Cd load/ha during 10 years

Max. loading limits: Per year g/ha: As 270, Cd 45, Cr 1,800, Cu 3,000, Hg 30, Ni 900, Pb 2,700, Se 180, Zn 6,000

FR

Organic soil improvers - Organic amendments and supports of culture; NFU 44-051

Application should follow good agrarian practices, and agronomical needs.

Some of the big international food producers (e.g. Bonduelle vegetables) have their own much stricter quality requirements for the contracted farmers.

Over 10 years g/ha: As 900, Cd 150, Cr 6,000, Cu 10,000, Hg 100, Ni 3,000, Pb 9,000, Se 600, Zn 30,000

GR Common National Ministerial Decision

Upper limits for amounts of heavy metals disposed of annually in agricultural land Cd 0,15, Cu 12, Ni 3, Pb 15, Zn 30, Cr 5, Hg 0,1, kg/ha/y


45



Limitations

HU

49/2001 Statutory Rule about the protection of the waters and groundwaters being affected by agricultural activities

If a plant has a product licence then simply Good agricultural practice applies. If not, plants must apply for area-specific application permission which will subsequently analyse for soil status prior to application.

170 kg/ha*y TN – availability of N is also considered in application.

IE

Statutory Instruments SI No. 378/2006 Good agricultural practice for protection of waters.

EU Nitrate Directive, plus: either P/N from compost is given the same availability as from cattle manure, or an individual compost producer can go to their local authority or the Environment Protection Agency and agree on a figure of the availability of P/N in their compost. Cré (Composting Association of Ireland) is currently reviewing all scientific publications to develop a standard reference document on P/N availability for the composting sector and government.

There are specific waiting periods to consider for animal access to land fertilised with biowaste compost based on the Animal-By-Product Regulations: catering waste 21 d for ruminant animals, 60 d for pigs.

IT

National law on Fertilisers; L. 748/84 (revised in 2006 with the new law on fertilisers, D.lgs. 217/06); Regional Provisions

No restrictions set on loads per unit area but to be used according to Good Agricultural Practice (1999)

According to Nitrate Directive, N limitation inside sensitive areas: 170 kg/ha/y TN. outside sensitive areas 340 kg/ha/y TN. In practice, only application in sensitive areas subject to control.

Some regions are currently considering the adoption of a coefficient for N availability in setting application limits.

26/01/09

46



Limitations

LT

Environmental Requirements for Composting of biowaste, approved by the Ministry of the Environment on 25 January 2007, No. D1-57; LAND 20-2005 (Gaz., 2005, No. 142-5135)

170 kg/ha N and 40 kg/ha P per year Heavy metal, pathogenic microorganism restricts application

LU

Regulation of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg on the Application of Organic Fertilisers

All farms that use more than 90 m3 compost per annum have to deliver a fertilisation plan including soil analysis to the Agricultural Administration ASTA.

In line with EU Nitrate directive, limits application of compost to 170 kg N/ha/y and in water protection areas to 130 kg N/ha/y with no application between 1st October and 1st February.

LV (EU Nitrate Directive) Maximum 170 kg N/ha/y, maximum 30 kg P/ha/y.

NL

Use of animal manure decree and new national fertiliser regulation after 01/2008

The use of compost on agricultural land is now regulated only by the nutrient application rate.

Max. 80 kg P2O5/ha*y and 120-250 kg N/ha*y depending on crop consumption. N and P content of compost must be declared as part of standard requirements.

For crops e.g. potatoes, compost needs low glass content <0.2 % and certification.

PL Fertiliser law Compost to be applied according to Good Agricultural Practice.

Heavy metal limits.

Requires 40 % organic matter content, which is difficult to achieve for compost

SE The Swedish Board of Agriculture: SJV 1998:915; Nitrate directive

22-35 kg P/ha*y and 150 kg N/ha*y for agriculture

Fixed maximum heavy metal load (g/ha*y): Pb 25; Cd 0.75; Cu 300; Cr 40; Hg 1.5; Ni 25; Zn 600

Class 1 can be used without restrictions SI

Decree on input of dangerous substances and plant nutrients into the soil (OJ RS 68/96 and 35/01); Class 2 can be spread with a


47



Limitations

Instructions for implementing good farming practices (OJ RS 34/00).

limited application rate depending on heavy metal load

UK NVZ regulations

30-35 t f.m./ha/y where a field NVZ limit of 250 kg TN/ha applies, 30 t f.m./ha/y if not NVZ but as per good agricultural practice, or 60–70 t f.m./ha once per two years if not NVZ but as per good agricultural practice

Voluntary Code of Good Agricultural Practice: limitation of nitrogen to 250 kg/ha/y (for all types of ‘organic manure’ used, including composts); compost can also be applied at a rate of 500 kg/ha once per two years

Source: Compiled from the questionnaire responses and via Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC.

26/01/09

48

3.2.3 Risk Assessment Data used to Develop Standards

The meaning of ‘risk assessment’ in this report is the attempt to quantify the risk to the environment, animal and human health of the presence of PTEs, organic contaminants, pathogens and physical contaminants, by tracing the impact of these factors from source, through pathways (i.e. composting/AD) and finally to the receptor (i.e. agricultural use). The information provided in this section is based mostly on questionnaire responses and on results from longer-term studies within the EU.

The questionnaire responses indicate that a comprehensive risk assessment for the compost sector has not really been executed in any European country. Nonetheless, a variety of compost/AD standards have been developed, as detailed in Section 3.1, reflecting different experiences within the various MS, and the fact that all MS are ultimately highly-protective of their agriculture. The key tools and research that have been used to develop the compost and digestate standards are as follows:

Knowledge about the use and application of sewage sludge (Sweden, France);

Load calculations of heavy metals inputs that lead to an acceptable accumulation in soils (Belgium, Germany, as well as the European Commission);

Heavy metal consumption during crop rotations (Netherlands); and

Adapting standards from other countries (Luxembourg).

The compost/AD sector in most European countries is relatively new and small in comparison with the sewage sludge sector, which has been the subject of considerable research, including risk assessments, over the last 20 years. Thus, it has been seen as easier and more economically feasible to adapt existing research on sewage sludge, and to modify it accordingly, for compost/digestate. The only area in which much headway has been made specifically with regard to the compost sector has been in determining the application rates of compost and digestate according to factors such as nutrient availability and accumulation of heavy metals in the soil.

The origin of the German standard lies in the State Instruction Leaflet M10 from 1984 entitled "Quality criteria and application guidelines for compost from mixed waste and mixed waste with sewage sludge". Considerable research was undertaken on mixed waste compost to try to promote its use, but customers were not happy with the physical impurities, specifically, glass and plastic, still within the compost, as well as the relatively high heavy metal contents. By the end of the 1980s mixed waste composting was stopped, being declared some years later as illegal.

The lack of customers, and hence, the absence of viable markets for mixed waste compost led to the implementation of separate collection projects for biowaste and green waste in 1989. A new proposal for a quality compost standard was developed using the agricultural and horticultural load limitation for heavy metals of the German Sewage Sludge Directive (AbfKlärV) as a maximum limit. A modified compost standard was subsequently developed with all relevant stakeholders involved, and the procedures for a RAL quality assurance scheme were also developed by the German Standardisation Institute. No special risk assessments were made. The quality requirements were widely-integrated into the new versions of the State Instruction Leaflet M10 from 1993 to 1995, entitled "Quality criteria and application guidelines for compost" and later in 1998 in the German Biowaste Ordinance.


49

In 1998, a major national research programme commenced on "New Technologies in Composting”, which was coordinated and financed by the German Environmental Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU)). A sub-project of this programme was entitled "Compost Application in Agriculture", where long term compost application trials were executed in order to evaluate the potential for beneficial aspects, as well as risks, for the soil, water and consumers. Germany thus provides an important example of where a longer-term study has been undertaken within the EU to assess the risk of PTEs in the agricultural system from the application of BTPs.

As discussed in Section 3.1.2, studies of between 10-20 years in Germany found that the overall risk of longer-term soil contamination was low. 47,48 Total concentration of heavy metals in both the soil and the crops did not increase over the 10-20 year period. In addition, mobile PTE content remained unchanged or showed reduced levels after compost application. Only Cu and Zn posed any small yet manageable long-term contamination risk, and only then, in areas with high background concentrations of these metals already in the soils.48

The setting of standards in Luxembourg has been based on the experiences and assessments undertaken in Germany.

For Austria, the majority of the limit values given in Section 3.1 were originally based on existing conventions, in combination with statistics produced on compost qualities by Austria, Germany and Switzerland, rather than on risk assessments. However, ex post risk assessment accumulation scenarios, such as those presented in the study in Germany 47,48

have provided support for the current Austrian standards, showing little evidence for either considerable decline in soil quality, or a major threat to soil functions during longer-term compost applications. In addition, when calculations were carried out assuming higher heavy metal loading figures for some compost applications (reflecting the views of more sceptical representatives from agricultural authorities), results indicated minimal risk to overall soil quality or soil functions related to effects on changes in heavy metal concentrations.

According to the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM), no published ex ante risk assessments were undertaken on the use of compost in agriculture in Belgium; instead, an ‘acceptable accumulation scenario’ approach was used, whereby OVAM analysed non-polluted soils and compared these with an acceptable level of marginal accumulation in the soil over the next 100 years. Using this principle for compost derived from separately-collected household VFG (vegetable, fruit and garden) waste and from green waste (public gardens and parks), a PTE-based application restriction of either two tonnes of dry matter per hectare per year or six tonnes in one application per hectare every three years was

47 Kluge, R., Deller, B., Flaig, H., Schultz, E. and Reinhold, J. (2008). Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture: Research Results of a Long Term Study in the Federal Republic of Germany - Final Report April 2008. Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg LTZ, Karlsruhe.

48 Deller, B., Kluge, R., Mokry, M., Bolduan, R. and Trenkle, A. (2008). Effects of Mid-Term Application of Composts on Agricultural Soils in Field Trials of Practical Importance: Possible Risks. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

26/01/09

50

originally derived. In using the same procedure for organic contaminants, the level of such contaminants was found to be close to the detection limit; thus, no further restrictions were placed on compost application. Following the implementation of the standards listed in Section 3.1, the Flemish Compost Quality Organisation VLACO undertook a number of field trials; the results were not published, but no further changes were made to the standards following these trials. One trial undertaken in 2005/06 went so far as to illustrate that cadmium uptake into plants was significantly reduced following compost application.

Ex post risk assessments relating to the effect of compost application on agricultural soils have also been undertaken in Denmark. In particular, the strategic Miljøforsknings programme which ran from 1997 to 2001 focused on providing sufficient knowledge and data to assess the fate and effect of potentially-harmful substances (PTEs and organic contaminants) due to compost and sludge application. 49 Based on the results achieved by a series of projects undertaken by several universities during this programme, it was generally concluded that the recycled organic waste and sludge did not:

1) Contain substances that in normal doses would have a serious toxic effect on soils/plants;

2) Contain substances that in normal doses would lead to an accumulation in the soil or food chains; and

3) Contain substances that in normal doses would pollute the land.

Modelling showed that the substances present in the waste which were investigated do not pose a risk to the environment if the current standards and regulations in Denmark are met for composting and AD processes.

In Italy, rather than being based on risk assessment information, the original standards were typically set on the basis of stakeholder discussions around:

1) The quality that is achievable by most sites that process only separately collected feedstocks (limit values tend to exclude only the poorer performers where source separation is specified, probably reflecting poor quality collection services); and

2) Limit values adopted elsewhere in Europe.

A risk assessment procedure for PTE limits was previously proposed by the Ministry of Agriculture (Experimental Institute for Plant Nutrition). However, this procedure only considered the bio-available parts of the PTEs, and was therefore not completed due to lack of consistency with the mainstream EU strategies for soil protection, which aim at preserving longer-term soil quality, regardless of the relative bio-availability of the pollutants. A new risk assessment procedure is currently being considered for the newly-proposed PTE limits in Italy.

The development of the compost standard in France (i.e. heavy metal limit values, organic contaminants) was originally based on environmental risk assessments that had previously been undertaken for sewage sludge.50 France’s composting is currently based mainly

49 Center for Bæredygtig Arealanvendelse og Forvaltning af Miljøfremmede Stoffer, Kulstof og Kvælstof, Aalborg Universitet. (2002). Det Strategiske Miljøforskningsprogram 1997-2000, Slutrapport. Http://Info.Au.Dk/Smp/Smp_Dk/Publikationer/Slutrapport/KH%20-%20Slutrapport.Pdf 50 Mallard, P., Gabrielle, B., Vignoles, M., Sablayrolles, C., Le Corff, V., Carrere, M., Renou, S., Vial, E., Muller, O., Pierre, N. and Coppin, Y. (2005) Impacts Environnementaux de la Gestion Biologique des Déchets: Bilan des


51

around mixed-waste composting rather than source-separated input materials; pre-treatment of the mixed waste (intensive screening and partial optical sorting) generates a final product from some plants that meets the French statutory compost quality standard and that can be used in agriculture within France. The summary report by Mallard et al. (2005)50 notes that the existing risk assessments that have been undertaken in the EU on compost application have been restricted in terms of locations (soil types and climate), but no ex post risk assessments are currently intended for compost production in France.

In the Netherlands, the final quality standards and application standards for compost were agreed following discussions between the compost sector and the agricultural and environmental policymakers, and involving extensive negotiations between the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM), the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV) and the compost sector itself. The Technical Committee on Soil Protection (TCB) was also closely involved. The final compost standard was laid down in the Other Organic Fertilisers (Quality and Use) Decree or ‘BOOM’ (Besluit kwaliteit en gebruik overige organische meststoffen). The decree regulated quality standards and rules on the application of compost according to the following general policy for heavy metals: the input of heavy metals and arsenic to the soil from the application of other organic fertilisers must not exceed the amounts of these elements removed in the harvested crop. Inputs were regulated through quality standards for heavy metal and arsenic concentrations and by setting maximum application doses. The outcome of the quality and application standards, therefore, determines the permitted heavy metal loads, which are based on a balance between their inputs and outputs.

The Dutch BOOM standard was built on the following principles, relating risks to soil protection:

1) Set challenging but attainable standards for compost;

2) Determine the ‘base load’ as the amount of heavy metals present in the soil prior to compost application;

3) Derive a ‘permissible extra load’ from the output of metals in the crop yield. This establishes a permissible input of heavy metals and arsenic via compost, and is based on the general principle that the input of heavy metals and arsenic must not exceed the amount removed in the harvested crop; and

4) Link the permitted application dosage to the quality of the compost.

The Fertiliser Act came into force in the Netherlands in 2008, introducing some important changes which are the result of more than 10 years of experience:

The BOOM quality standards for the now singular class of "compost" will transfer to the Fertiliser Act (Uitvoeringsbesluit meststoffenwet); and

The application guidelines in the BOOM will be transferred to the Use of Animal Manure Decree (Besluit gebruik meststoffen). Heavy metals will no longer determine

Connaissances, Rapport final de l’étude répondant au Marché n° 0375C0081 entre l’ADEME (2005) et le Groupement Cemagref – INRA – CReeD – Anjou Recherche – Ecobilan – Orval.

26/01/09

52

the application rates of compost, but instead, the rates will be determined only by nitrogen and phosphorus standards for application to agricultural land.

Thus, initially, the growth in compost quantities led to the development of waste legislation with regard to compost, reflecting sensitivity to possible risks associated with using compost derived from waste as a feedstock. However, over time experience has shown that quality compost does not impose any real risks, but that the application rate has to be regulated principally through reference to impacts on soil fertilisation. Compost now falls under a Fertiliser Act that has been adapted specifically for inclusion of compost.

Similar to France, development of the voluntary standards in Sweden was originally based on risk assessments that were undertaken for sewage sludge. The compost/AD business was regarded as too small for additional risk assessments to be required (112,033 tonnes of compost and 336,100 tonnes digestate were produced in 2007), and the legislators in Sweden deemed that contaminant levels in compost/digestate were so low that no additional special requirements to those already imposed for sewage sludge were needed. In addition, a long-term trial undertaken by the University of Uppsala in Malmö, found no detrimental effects on soil properties or long-term heavy metals accumulation in plants due to sewage sludge/compost application over a 25 year period. There is currently a new report from Ottoson et al. (2008) of the Swedish State Veterinarian Institute (SVA) entitled “Risks of infection dispersion from the treatment of farm manure and animal by-products cat. III” which should further clarify how to minimise risks associated with treating ABP in composting/AD plants (further information not disclosed in the questionnaire response).

No ex ante risk assessments associated with the application of compost on agricultural land were undertaken in Hungary. The regulations associated with compost production and use in Hungary still remain under the fertiliser regulation; the requirement to undertake costly analysis of organic pollutants results from the fertiliser regulation for mineral fertilisers, manure and sewage sludge, rather than as a result of a risk assessment associated with compost use. Similarly, the hygienisation regulations stipulated in the ABPR were implemented in Hungary without reference to risk assessments and with no special reference to the operation of composting or AD plants. Despite the Hungarian compost association’s best efforts, it appears that little progress has been made in recent years regarding further development of specific compost standards, notwithstanding the problems now being faced in the country related to historically poor soil management practices that were employed under the communist regime and which have left agricultural soils in Hungary in poor condition.

In Ireland, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) have not conducted any risk assessments. The set of standards in Ireland are based on the 2nd draft of the EU Biowaste Directive. Similarly, according to the Ministry of the Environment, the Biowaste Ordinance in the Czech Republic was not originally related to risk assessment data. In Portugal, Spain, Finland and Cyprus, there is no evidence of risk assessments having been undertaken. There is, however, a voluntary set of analyses that can be undertaken for compost imported to Cyprus from elsewhere prior to application to agricultural land – these include analysis for nutrients, organic matter, heavy metals and pathogens.

In summary it therefore appears that, in the majority of countries, the original standards/regulations were not based on risk assessments; in a number of countries they have been based, at least in part, on the experiences and standards associated with sewage sludge. However, ex post risk assessments have either subsequently been undertaken, or are being considered, in various MS going forward. Based upon combined information from the longer-term risk assessment studies alongside their own quality data and practical


53

experiences, MS such as Austria, Germany and the Netherlands have confidence that their composting and digestate standards effectively insulate agriculture and consumers from risks which might otherwise be of concern. Of course, it is impossible to establish that practices present ‘zero risk’ in this context.

In practice, the main tools that are used to minimise the risks associated with BTP application are:

Setting challenging but achievable quality standards that consider protection of the soil;

Establishing quality management/monitoring schemes;

Requiring certification of plants;

Allowing only the use of certified/quality assured composts and digestate products (as required in cropping systems/ food chains with traceability of the used raw materials);

Requiring extensive declaration/labelling of the product properties; and

Providing detailed application information.

26/01/09

54

4.0 Size of Compost and AD Markets This section details the quantity of feedstocks used in both composting and anaerobic digestion plants, the quantity of outputs from these processes, and looks at the agricultural market share of the produce within the EU.

4.1 Feedstock Use in Compost and AD Facilities The quantity of feedstocks used in composting and anaerobic digestion facilities are presented in Table 9 and Table 10 respectively. In addition, for reference, a list of those anaerobic digestion plants present in the EU (including Switzerland) for which the authors could find information is presented in Appendix A.3.0. This list contains over 100 more plants than a similar list compiled in 2004 by Eunomia.51 According to Table 9 and Table 10, the majority of compost inputs are source-separated garden and kitchen waste, with France and Spain also using a large amount of mixed MSW, and some relatively large industrial sources such as mushroom culture residues, crop residues and forestry products. In contrast, manure, biowaste, slaughterhouse waste and food/beverage processing waste make up the majority of anaerobic digestion inputs.

51 Eunomia (2004) Feasibility Study Concerning Anaerobic Digestion in Northern Ireland, Final Report for Bryson House, ARENA Network and NI2000


55

Table 9: Feedstock Use in Composting Facilities Material Input (t/y) for composting

Household/Community Industrial

Overall Feedstock Quantity

used

Manure Mixed-MSW Garden

Waste

Biowaste52/ Kitchen Waste

Sewage Sludge Other Forestry

Products

Food and Beverage

Processing Waste

Landscaping/ Ground

Maintenance

Digestate from AD Other

AT (2007) 1,546,000 950,000 546,000 50,000

BG Flanders (2006)53

1,074,000 250,000 500,000 310,000 14,000

CH (2006) 778,487

CZ (2007) 800,00054

DE (2007) 8,002,000 2,000 3,000,000 5,000,000

DK (2006) 897,000 782,000 36,000 67,000 12,000

ES (2006)53 8,190,00055 810,000 600,000 agricultural –

crop and animal residues

FI (2007) 53,000 53,000

FR (2005)53 16,400,000 2,400,000 300,000

HU (2005)53 250,000 250,000

52 Biowaste may contain varying proportions of garden waste collected from private households depending of the collection scheme adopted.

53 Both composting and AD inputs combined.

54 Statistics from a comprehensive study undertaken by the ZeRA Agency (http://www.zeraagency.eu).

55 91 composting plants and 11 AD plants combined treated 9 million tonnes of MSW wastes, no further breakdown is available from Ategrus 2007 survey. An additional 45 composting plants treat only non MSW wastes.

26/01/09

56

Material Input (t/y) for composting



used

Manure Mixed-MSW Garden

Waste

Biowaste52/ Kitchen Waste

Sewage Sludge Other Forestry

Products

Food and Beverage

Processing Waste

Landscaping/ Ground

Maintenance

Digestate from AD Other

IE (2006) 162,606

IT (2006)53 3,185,596 1,076,503 1,184,079 536,166 388,848

LU (2007) 58,000 15,370 30,740 1,160 organic residues from markets

NL (2007) 3,280,000 1,400,000 1,500,000 47,000 64,000 132,000 137,000

PL (2007)56 750,000 600,000 110,000 40,000

PT (2007) Lipor only 28,257 12,826 15,431

SE (2005) 347,500 12,000 15,50057 250,000 97,000

UK58 (2005/06)

3,417,000 2,539,000 323,000 38,000 88,000 155,000 153,000 121,000

Compiled with data from questionnaires, from the International Solid Waste Association. (2006). Biological Waste Treatment Survey. Edited by W. Rogalski and C. F. Schleiss and from APAT “Rapporto rifiuti 2007”, the official yearly report on waste management undertaken by the Italian Environment Protection Agency.

56 Personal communication concerning survey undertaken in 2007 by G. Siebelic (Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation).

57 Not for agricultural use.

58 Nikitas, C., Pocock, R., Toleman, I. and Gilbert, E. J. (2006) The State of Composting and Biological Waste Treatment in the UK 2005/06, Report produced on behalf of the Composting Association and WRAP.


57

Table 10: Feedstock Use in Anaerobic Digestion Facilities (note that for some countries a split between composting and AD was unavailable; in these instances the combined feedstock quantities have been given in Table 9).

Material Input (t/y) for anaerobic digestion



used Manure Mixed-

MSW Garden Waste

Biowaste/ Kitchen Waste

Sewage Sludge Other Slaughterhouse

waste

Food and Beverage

Processing Waste Harvest remains Other

AT (2004) 30,000 ~100,000 <5,000 ~10,000

CH (2006) 106,1574

CZ (2007) 10,00059

DE (2007)

1,700,000,

together with X

X

DK (2006) 1,800,000 89,000 140,000

FI (2007) Est. 40,000-50,000

LU (2007) 11,800

NL (2007) 180,000 60,000

SE (2005) 68,000 28,000 98,000 37,000

Source: Compiled with data from: International Solid Waste Association. (2006). Biological Waste Treatment Survey. Edited by W. Rogalski and C. F. Schleiss.

The official Danish Waste Statistics ‘Affaldsstatistik. (2006), Milijøstyrelsen. (2008),http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2008/978-87-7052-753-8/pdf/978-87-7052-754-5.pdf

59 Estimated from number of biogas plants in operation and their capacity – information from CZ Biom.

8/12/08

58

4.2 Overall Market Size The overall amount of biowaste treatment products generated annually by countries within the EU is detailed in Table 11. The largest BTP production was in Germany, followed by France, the Netherlands, Italy, the UK and Spain, though in the case of Spain and France, the input feedstock is comprised mostly of mixed-waste.

A split of BTP production for composting compared to AD facilities has proved difficult to obtain for the MS; nonetheless where available, contributions from AD facilities are significant, and as has been noted in Section 4.1, the list of facilities within the EU is growing fairly rapidly.

In 2005/2006, the agricultural sector accounted for an average of 50 % of the total BTP market in the EU (Figure 2a). The maximum agricultural use of BTPs was in Spain, followed by the Netherlands, France and Hungary. Minimum agricultural use of BTPs occurred in Belgium, due to the combined effects of restrictive fertiliser legislation and the financial support available for the competing manure application. Only limited data are available for comparing the market sectors in BTPs derived from composting facilities compared to AD facilities (Figure 2b and Figure 2c for composting and AD respectively). This limitation partly reflects the fact that some of the digestate is post-composted and subsequently becomes part of the compost market. From the available data, the agricultural sector accounted for more than half of each country’s total compost market except for Denmark (where mainly green waste is composted), and more than 85 % of each country’s total digestate market. This does not necessarily imply that the agricultural sector needs to play a more important role in respect of digestate than for compost. Nonetheless, the liquor output that results from the separation of the liquid from the solid phase post-digestion lends itself to use in agriculture. In addition, where there is no solid/liquid separation phase, muck-spreaders are able to directly spread the slurried digestate onto land, avoiding the need for an additional de-watering step.60

4.3 Principle Crops Information on the types of crops to which compost and digestate are applied has been provided from several questionnaire responses. In France, 71 % of the predominantly mixed waste products produced from composting and AD facilities were used in agriculture in 2005, with 68 % used in cereal production and 3 % used in specialised agriculture such as vineyards and vegetable crops. In 2003, 76 % of such products were used in agriculture, with 58 % used in cereal production, 12 % in vineyards, and 6 % in organic agriculture.

In Sweden, compost is not used in agriculture, due to the perception from farmers that compost contains less nitrogen, and because the growing media/substrate market is much more economically viable for the compost plants. 98 % of digestate is, however, used in agriculture, with almost all of the digestate used for cereal production (particularly barley and wheat).

60 In some countries, the spreading of digestate in slurried form is acceptable under existing regulations. Other countries deem it desirable to require the separation of the liquor from the solid residue. In Germany, for example, more than 90 % of digestate applied is in liquid form, with the remaining solid residue undergoing post-composting.


59

Table 11: Total Biowaste Treatment Products (tonnes/year) Generated in EU Member States

Year Total BTP (t/y) Total from Composting Facilities (t/y) Total from AD Facilities (t/y)

AT* 2005 416,000 (does not include digestate)

BE (Fl) 2006 333,000 313,000 20,000

BG -

CH 2002 405,000 360,000 45,000

CY 2007 - - -

CZ 2007 500,000 268,000 232,000 (based on CISTA data for first half of 2008)

DE 2007 5,700,000 5,000,000 700,000

DK 2005 356,000 - -

EE -

ES 2006 1,390,000

FI 2005 180,000

FR 2005 2,490,000 (of which

1,090,000 is separately-collected compost).

GR* 2005 8,840

HU 2005 50,000

IE 2006 100,500 79,783

IT 2006 1,212,190 1,166,427 45,763 (household waste only – excludes manure/slurry)

LT -

LU 2007 13,500

LV 2006 15,000 15,000 0

MT -

NL 2007 2,100,000 1,900,000 20,000

PL -

PT 2005 29,501 5,871 from Lipor

RO -

SE 2007 448,133 112,033 336,100

SI -

SK* 2005 32,938

UK 2005/06 2,036,000

For MS with ‘*’ individual estimations by national experts were missing. Here the amount of produced compost was calculated by multiplying the collection and treatment figures by the decomposition factor 0.4. This represents an average compost output of 40% of the composted source material. Source: Questionnaire responses; Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC; Avfall Sverige Swedish Waste Management Report 2008.

8/12/08

60

Figure 2: The Agricultural Sector Market Share of a) Overall Biowaste Treatment Products, b) Products Produced from Composting Facilities and c) Products Produced from AD Facilities.

a) Total BTP Used in Agriculture (2005/2006 data unless otherwise stated)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

AT

BE Flander

s CH CZ DE

ES (Gre

en W

aste)

ES (Mainly

Mixed M

SW) FI

FR (M

ainly Mixe

d Waste

) HU

IE (2006) IT

LU (2

007)

NL (Biow

aste)

NL (Gre

en w

aste)

UK

%

Mean EU

b) % Compost Used in Agriculture

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

AT (2005/6) DE (2003/4) DK (2006) HU (2003/4) IE (2006) IT (2006) NL (2003/4) UK (2003/4)

%

Mean


61

c) % Digestate Used in Agriculture (excluding digestate that is post-composted)

0

20

40

60

80

100

AT (2005/6) DE (2003/4) DK (2003/4) IT (2006) Household-sourced

IT (2006)Manures/slurries

HU (2003/4) SE (2008)

%

Mean

In Germany, the use of compost in agriculture is split, with one third used for root vegetables, such as sugar beet and potatoes, and the remaining two thirds used in cereals/grain production. In the Netherlands, the split between these two applications is roughly 50/50.

According to the questionnaire response from Italy, the split of figures for different crop types is not available because both ‘proof of delivery’ and ‘record of use’ are not required when selling compost in this country. However, anecdotally, most compost goes to corn production in the Northern flatlands and to vineyards, fruit trees and horticulture in Central and Southern Italy.

8/12/08

62

5.0 The EU Animal By-Products Regulation (1774/2002)

The Animal By-Products Regulation (ABPR) has been influential on compost production in that it specifies which animal by-products can be used within composting and anaerobic digestion plants to produce BTPs, and requires essential control of the process and production of those BTPs.

Only the following animal by-products may be transformed in a biogas or composting plant:

(a) Category 2 material, when first rendered using processing method 1 in a Category 2 processing plant;

(b) Manure and digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum, and;

(c) Category 3 material.

It should be noted however that for the United Kingdom, the current interpretation as provided by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) is that BTPs generated using Category 2 material that is required to be rendered first using processing method 1 in a Category 2 processing plant cannot be applied to agricultural land, in order to further minimise the risks associated with ABP.

Section 3.1.4 has detailed the hygienisation requirements set by the ABPR and subsequent Regulation 208/2006, which allowed some freedom for MS to set their own hygienisation regulations for catering waste, depending on process validation. MS were asked, in the questionnaire and follow-up telephone conversation, how the ABPR had affected the way they regulate the production of compost and digestate. Based on responses, in what follows, we provide a discussion around any changes that the MS introduced to their regulations following the ABPR and 208/2006 and the reasoning behind such changes where known.

5.1 Treatment Methodologies Developed to Meet EU Requirements As mentioned previously, catering waste is defined in the ABP as all food waste originating in both commercial and household kitchens/facilities. Catering waste has been exempted from the special requirements of Annex VI by the stipulations of article 6(2)(g) and article 7(1) for composting and AD plants respectively. The ABPR and amending Regulation 208/2006 allow for competent authorities to authorise specific requirements other than those laid down in the ABPR when catering waste is the only ABP being used as raw material in the composting or AD plant, provided they can guarantee an “equivalent effect regarding the reduction of pathogens”.

Similarly, when manure or digestive tract content are the only ABP material being treated, the competent authority may also authorise the use of different specific requirements, provided that they do not consider that the material presents a risk of spreading disease and that the residues/compost are considered to be unprocessed material.

Hence, following the introduction of the ABPR and the 208/2006 derogation for plants taking only catering wastes, various MS made changes to their composting and AD practices. Changes in the following areas of organics recycling are detailed in Table 12, with key points summarised as follows:


63

Collection schemes

In Austria, additional cleaning requirements for vehicles and bins for commercial catering wastes were implemented. Germany has established two different collection schemes, one for catering waste from regular households, and an additional one for ABP materials from commercial/industrial sources such as restaurants, supermarkets and the food industry. The latter material goes mainly into AD plants.

Feedstock use

In Austria and Germany, the new regulations sparked the creation of a new positive list of feedstocks which can be treated in composting and AD plants, with a distinct differentiation for all ABP.

Hygienisation standards

A number of countries availed themselves of the possibility to retain their own national standards when the ABPR first came into being. In principle, they now use the 208/2006 provisions and validate their own processes rather than following the ABP standard, particularly for catering waste. In Finland, for example, the regulations on hygienisation were originally implemented for all facilities using permissible feedstocks as stated in the ABP regulations and in 208/2006 i.e. 70 ºC for 1 hour with a maximum particle size of 12 mm entering the composting reactor/ AD hygienisation unit. However, as had been anticipated by many experts, the particle size hygienisation requirement created difficulties for the composting plants; in order to meet the requirement, the compost had to be screened after 10 days and the composting process then started again on the finer material.61 In addition, the 70 ºC for 1 hour was also found to be difficult to achieve in a composting process. Finland subsequently changed its hygienisation process for catering waste, allowing a maximum particle size of 40 mm and time-temperature requirements of 60 ºC for 14 days or 65 ºC for 7 days. Finnish authorities are awaiting the intended revision in 2008/2009 before determining whether any further changes to requirements will be needed for hygienisation and other treatment methodologies.

France has recently (22nd April 2008) brought out a new regulation for composting/AD plants, setting different process requirements according to whether aeration is via turning or via forced aeration for all plants that use any ABP as an input material. The new French regulations also follow the 208/2006 regulation, stating that the plant may use an alternative method when it can prove that that method meets the required hygienisation requirements.

61 It is not clear whether there would have been constraints on shredding ABP material and then mixing with non ABP structural materials to enable composting to occur in the desired manner. In some circumstances, structural material may be in relatively short supply. In addition, if food and garden waste are co-collected, material that could otherwise be used as structural material (garden waste) would have to be shredded along with the ABP material.

8/12/08

64

Table 12: Changes to Composting and AD Standards/Regulations Following the Introduction of the ABPR

Collection Scheme Feedstocks Hygienisation Licensing Standards for BTP

application Labelling

AT • Additional cleaning and disinfection requirements for vehicles and bins in the case of catering waste from central kitchens, even if collected with the municipal brown bin scheme

• No changes for household brown-bin scheme

• In an agreement between Ministry for Health and Ministry for Environment, a new list of all waste materials which can be treated in composting and AD plants with a distinct differentiation for all ABP has been implemented in the Austrian Waste catalogue.

• In the Austrian BAT-Guideline “State of the Art of Composting”, issued by the Ministry for Environment and in agreement with the Ministry of health, 6 different time-temperature regimes for open and closed composting systems were introduced for catering waste as a result of ABPR implementation.

• Specific management requirements have been established if catering waste from central kitchens and restaurants and former foodstuff (which has not been in contact with raw meat and has been pasteurized by means of its processing) are treated, but all catering waste can still be treated in open windrow composting

• All other category 3 Material needs hygienisation or validation according to the ABPR.

• As a result of ABPR, an Austrian Regulation was published by the Min. of Health requiring registration of all composting AD plants which treat ABP. With the exception of catering waste, which is collected with the brown bin system, ABP treatment plants are approved individually by the VET authorities.

• More attention was given to a strict separation of composting premises from livestock.

- -

BG • In 7 VFG composting plants, the ABP regulation does not apply because the input materials do not contain any ABP. Thus the existing treatment methods of 60°C for 5 days or 55°C for 12 days are sufficient for hygienisation requirements.

• 2 VFG plants have not, however, excluded ABP from household collections – one plant is a composting plant which complies with the 70°C, 1 hour but not with the 12 mm particle size ABP requirements (providing process validation instead). The other is an AD plant which operates an additional post-composting together with green waste to comply with the ABPR requirement.


65



DE • Two different collection schemes, one for catering waste from regular households, and an additional one for ABP materials from commercial/ industrial sources such as restaurants, supermarkets and the food industry.

• A new list of all waste materials which can be treated in composting and AD plants with a distinct differentiation for all ABP has been implemented.

• In Germany BTP application is not allowed on pasture land (see Section 3.2.1).

DK • No longer collect catering waste for pigs.

- - - - -

FI • Originally changed all hygienisation regulations (incl. catering waste) to mirror those detailed in the ABPR (70 ºC, 1 h, 12 mm). However, have since altered catering waste regulations to 40 mm particle size and at either 60 ºC for 14 days or 65 ºC for 7 days.

• A growing number of plants are opting for process validation to meet their requirements.

8/12/08

66



FR • New regulation for the technology and operation of composting/AD plants came into force 22nd April 2008. All plants which input any ABP material must subsequently undertake following:

• For composting or stabilization where aeration is via turning, require minimum 3 week decomposition, minimum 3 turnings with at least a 3 day gap between turns, and 55 ºC for 72 h.

• For composting or stabilization where there is forced aeration, require minimum 2 week decomposition, minimum 1 turning which leads to 50 ºC for 24 h, followed by 55 ºC for 72 h.

• Where a plant illustrates that an alternative treatment delivers sufficient hygienisation, this method can be accepted (i.e. following ABP regulations).

IE • The recent (2008) Irish ABP now includes shells and hatchery by-products (from animals not showing signs of any communicable disease) and feathers to be included as feedstocks.

• The Irish ABP excludes some Category 3 materials (a, b, c, d, e, k)62 from use in composting/AD facilities.

• Meat and bonemeal can only be processed in a composting/AD facility subject to strict conditions with a special “animal protein fertilizer license”.

• There is now a national processing standard for catering waste: 60ºC for 48 h, twice. E.Coli is accepted as the indicator organism.

• Stock-proof fencing is required.

• ABP compost can be applied to the land as per the ABPR:

- farmed animals should not have access for 21 days after application.

- Pigs should not have access for 60 days after application.

- Ensiled crop/hay can be made 21 days after application.

62 As defined in Article 6 of EU 1774/2002.


67



IT • No change in process standards for composting of catering wastes – own hygienisation standards followed with process validation.

• AD standards typically follow ABPR.

•

LU • The relevance of ABP regulations and the hygienisation requirements are checked during the permission process for each new plant.

SE • The collection of Catering waste from restaurants and supermarkets together with biowaste from households is tolerated by the authorities due to the decentralized population structure in most of Sweden.

• Complaints have been made about the complicated documentation required.

• In Sweden a winter must pass between the application of BTPs to pasture land and its subsequent use.

Source: Compiled using information provided from questionnaire responses.

8/12/08

68

Licensing procedures

Austria implemented an obligatory registration by the veterinarian authority of all composting and AD plants which treat any type of ABP, with the requirement that livestock and composting premises are kept separate. No special licensing is required for catering waste in Germany besides that of the Biowaste Ordinance. Special permission is however needed for other ABP materials, as it is for non-VFG waste in both Belgium and the Netherlands.

Standards for BTP application

In Germany BTP application is not currently allowed on pasture land, and in Sweden a winter must pass between the application of BTPs to pasture land and its subsequent use.

Labelling

None detailed so far.

5.2 Risk Assessment Data used to Develop Methodologies The ABPR allows the use of national standards for Category 3 catering waste (Article 6(1)(l)). For all other Category 3 ABP materials, such national variants are required to meet specific process validation tests, designed to determine their ‘equivalence’ to the process standard set out in ABP Regulation (EC) n° 1774/2001 i.e.70 C for 60 min with a maximum particle size 12 mm. These validation tests were originally set out in Annex VI of the ABP Regulation (EC) n° 1774/2001, with an amendment to the indicator organisms following in Regulation 208/2006. As mentioned previously in Section 3.1.4, the process must result in a reduction of 5 log10 of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg (775W, H2S negative) and infectivity titre of thermo-resistant viruses such as parvovirus by at least 3 log10, whenever such viruses are identified as a relevant hazard. In addition, the indicator organisms for the approval of the process and final product are specified. For the hygienisation process, Escherichia coli or Enterococcae are to be used. A maximum number of bacteria in 1 g is set at 1,000 for 4 out of 5 samples and only in 1 sample can the bacteria number can be between 1,000 and 5,000. For the hygiene status of the product, Salmonella must be absent in 25 g. In principle, it might thus be expected that a number of MS might be seeking to validate national hygienisation standards through use of the tests set out in the ABPR as amended by Regulation 208/2006. This picture is somewhat complicated by the fact that a revised ABPR is expected in the fairly short-term. Hence, whilst in principle, one might have expected some activity to validate national standards, the majority of MS appear to be taking the view that they will await the new ABPR before embarking on validation of standards which may change in the new Regulation. In addition, a detailed common standard of validation techniques is still missing, and the reliability of applied methodologies is still critically discussed among experts.

It is worth stating at this juncture that the UK’s approach appears to have been quite exceptional. The UK sought to establish its standards purely on the basis of a risk assessment process, using the maximum 12 mm particle size and 70ºC for 1 hour treatment standard as a comparator. As such, the approach might be regarded as more


69

tightly focused or risk-averse than in any other MS, whilst also accounting for the practical problems associated with the 70ºC for 1 hour and 12 mm particle size requirements likely to be experienced by the composting industry through blanket application of the ABPR standard.63 More than any other Member State, therefore, the UK sought, after the initial introduction of the ABPR, to establish some level of equivalence between the Annex VI processing standard and its preferred approach.

Previous discussion by Eunomia (2004)64 noted that there was confusion regarding the interpretation of ABPR by the UK, with the Danish Veterinary Institute in particular responding to the consultation on Defra’s proposed statutory instrument by pointing out that the risk assessment carried out on behalf of Defra had probably under-estimated the effects of AD by around a factor of 10,000. The report by Eunomia (2004) went on to state that:

Many biogas processes are presented by pasteurization (70ºC / 1 h / 12 mm) in combination with either mesophilic or thermophilic digestion. This means that the pathogen reduction will be associated with two processes. In the Defra Risk Assessment, the pathogen reduction of biogas treatment is measured as reduction of faecal streptococci (FS) as described by H.J. Bendixen (DK). Using the same indicator organism it is possible to give the expected effect of pasteurization (Lund et al., 1996, Antonie van Leeuwenhoek, 69: 25-31) combined with the effect of either mesophilic or thermophilic digestion as stated in the study. These are shown in [Table 13] below.

This means that if there is a pre-pasteurization process, the pathogen reduction of the biogas process will be between 7 log (pasteurization + mesophilic digestion) and > 10 log (pasteurization + thermophilic digestion). The pathogen reduction in the biogas process will, of course, depend on the time and temperature in the reactor but the figures mentioned here are those given in the risk assessment study.

Table 13: Log Reductions of Presence of Faecal Streptococci (FS) Due to Pasteurisation, Mesophilic Digestion and Thermophilic Digestion

Log reduction of FS

Pasteurisation (70 C / 1h / 12 mm) > 6

Mesophilic digestion 1

Thermophilic digestion 4-6

Source: Eunomia (2004) Feasibility Study concerning Anaerobic Digestion in Northern Ireland, Final Report for Bryson House, Arena Network and NI2000.

63 It is worth pointing out that it has proved very difficult to find evidence of a detailed risk assessment underpinning the EU ABPR itself. This does raise questions concerning how the standards were set, and how the validation tests under the revised Article 6 have been developed.

64 Eunomia (2004) Feasibility Study concerning Anaerobic Digestion in Northern Ireland, Final Report for Bryson House, Arena Network and NI2000.

8/12/08

70

Work undertaken by Martens regarding introduction of the ABPR illustrated the ability of AD to reduce a number of different organisms during the digestion process, with only Bovine Parvovirus experiencing a log reduction of less than 6 (see Figure 3).65 This work illustrated firstly that high levels of such organisms were present in un-treated cattle slurry (which is often applied directly to agricultural land) and secondly, that after a matter of hours of treatment using a thermophilic digestion process, a rapid reduction in the majority of organisms occurred. Martens concluded that organisms such as Salmonella Senftenberg would fulfil all requirements for sufficient process validation, together with more stable organisms such as Bovine Parvovirus.

From the questionnaire replies received and studies available, only the Netherlands and Sweden have noted the use of a risk assessment following introduction of the ABPR-208/2006.

Figure 3: Reduction of Different Test Pathogens in a Thermophilic Biogas Plant (Cattle Slurry, 54,5°C; FKS: Faecal streptococci; BPV: Bovine Parvovirus; S. senft.: Salmonella senftenberg; ERV: Equine Rhinovirus; ECBO: Bovine Enterovirus)

0 4 9 14 19 24 29 34

024

6

8

10

Exposure time (hours)

Temp. 54,5 °C

log 1

0 PFU

/ml

or lo

g 10 T

CID

50/g

erm

car

rier

BPVFKS enr.

FKS nativeS. senft.

ERVECBO

In the Netherlands, there is no set time-temperature regime for compost or AD plants where manure, catering wastes or other Category 3 wastes comprise the input materials. Process validation is instead used as the only hygienisation requirement, following the requirements specified in amending Regulation 208/2006 (5 log10 reduction of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg (775W, H2S negative), maximum number of either Escherichia coli or Enterococcae in 1 g is set at 1,000 for 4 out of 5 samples and only in 1 sample can the bacteria number can be between 1,000 and 5,000. For the hygiene status of the product,

65 Martens, W. (2003) Suitability of Different Test Organisms as Parameter to Evaluate the Hygiene Effectiveness of Composting and Digestion, ECN Workshop Maastricht, October 2003.

Source: Martens, W. (2003) Suitability of Different Test Organisms as Parameter to Evaluate the Hygiene Effectiveness of Composting and Digestion, ECN Workshop Maastricht, October 2003.


71

Salmonella must be absent in 25 g). A study undertaken by Elsinga (2008)66 has subsequently examined whether the compost and AD regimes used in the Netherlands meet the process validation requirements of the ABPR and hence minimise any risk associated with its use as an input material. Samples were analysed from 21 of the 24 plants that currently compost or anaerobically digest source-separated green waste and kitchen waste, collected from around 100 municipalities and representing five different technologies and a mix of hygienisation methods. Samples were analysed prior to, during and following the compost/AD process for Enterococaceae, Escherichia coli and Salmonella Senftenberg. Key findings included:

The input material entering all 21 plants had similar levels of contamination, supporting the assumption that all source-separated waste in the Netherlands has the same initial contamination level.

Levels of contamination were relatively low in the initial pilot study for the input materials used, making reduction of Enterococaceae by 5 log10 difficult to measure. Hence the main study of 21 plants was undertaken in summer to try and record the maximum possible levels, and the detection limit of the methodology was reduced to 10 CFU/g.

In the main study, 15 out of 21 plants subsequently achieved a reduction of almost 5 log10 of Enterococaceae during the compost/AD process, and only 1 plant measured the presence of Salmonella in the fresh compost.

There were no significant differences according to the type of technology employed (and therefore according to the time-temperature method used).

Compost and AD plants should be aware that the screening process following composting/digestion can be a significant source of re-contamination of BTPs and that the screen should thus be suitably sanitised between uses.

The newly developed sampling strategy employed here to analyse for sufficient hygienisation must ensure that the results are truly representative and that contamination has not occurred during the sampling process. Just one drop of contaminated moisture from the floor containing 107 CFU/g of contaminant would bring a 100 gram sample of sterile compost to a level of 105 CFU/g. In addition, this study used spot test analysis rather than direct process evaluation as the validation system – the ABPR does not specify which method to use, but a previous study found that using spot test analysis, the mean reduction in CFU/g was lower (hence the study erred on the side of caution).

The varying time-temperature regimes employed in the different Dutch plants were not therefore, found to impose any significant risk on the resultant product from either composting or AD. The plants can achieve the 5 log10 reduction required by 208/2006;


8/12/08

72

hence the methodology employed by Elsinga (2008)67 was recently accepted as standard by the Dutch authorities. It should be noted, however, that as the results above indicate, meeting the required level of reduction is by no means a foregone conclusion.

Following the 208/2006 amendment, Sweden commissioned research on alternative treatment methods and their ability to meet hygienisation requirements. The report68,69 concluded that mesophilic AD (< 35 ºC) only achieved suitable hygienisation in terms of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg when the fermentation tank was exposed to an ammonium content of 8 mg/l plus a retention time of at least 1.5 days. All thermophilic treatment methods were shown to achieve hygienisation requirements. This was also confirmed in the research undertaken by Elsinga (2008)67 during the development of the new Dutch system. Common composting systems (including low tech solutions on piles) also achieved the required hygienisation where the turning of the material was done carefully and thoroughly. The report recommended that detailed treatment criteria be set for both compost and AD plants by the Swedish Board of Agriculture in conjunction with the State Veterinary Institute, with a validation procedure to be managed by the Swedish Board of Agriculture. This is now common practice in Sweden, where several plant classes and requirements exist depending on the chosen process and risk type of the material.

5.3 Summary The previous Sections highlight the role that the ABPR has had in bringing about some changes to MS processing standards. It shows how, following the introduction of the ABPR, most countries retained existing national standards where catering waste was concerned, though some aspects of their standards were required to change where the ABPR gave no leeway for MS (for example, in respect of those Category 2 and Category 3 materials other than catering waste which could be processes in biogas and composting plants). It seems reasonable to suggest that for some countries with well-developed systems in place, these adaptations have been made despite the fact that the MS concerned were satisfied – and increasingly so – that their existing systems safeguarded the health of humans, livestock and soils.

The UK approach, on the other hand, was – in the absence of well-established national standards – to undertake a risk assessment in the light of the ABPR with a view to establishing processing standards that would, under assumptions that were largely precautionary in nature, reduce risks to animal health to what were considered to be acceptable levels.

As indicated previously, MS have tests for pathogens in compost, though the indicator organisms used vary. With the exception of the Netherlands, the tests are specified in terms of the presence of a given pathogen rather than in terms of the level of reduction in the presence of the pathogen, which is how the desired “effect” on pathogens is set out in


68 Avfall Sverige (2007) Rapport B2007:01 Alternativa hygieniseringsmetoder, ISSN 1103-4092, Malmö.

69 Kjellberg Christensen, K., Carlsbaek, M., Norgaard, E., Warberg, K. H., Venelampi, O. and Brøgger, M. (2002) Supervision of the sanitary quality of composting in the Nordic countries, TemaNord 2002:567, Report produced for the Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark.


73

Annex VI Ch II 13a (d) of the ABPR. Some MS have made steps towards validating their own process standards against the process validation tests in Annex VI, notably the Netherlands and Sweden. Apart from these countries, the tests for indicator organisms in other MS appear to have been taken to imply the “equivalent effect” is being achieved.

It should be noted that on the basis of the team’s knowledge and of the interviews carried out, the team is not aware of any known cases of outbreaks of, or increases in the prevalence of, animal diseases related to the application of compost/digestate on agricultural land. The only ‘reported case’ involved the detection of animal tissue DNA in a consignment of sugar beet in Germany. This was consequently traced to a problem with rodents rather than being related to the use of compost (see Section 6.2 for further details). One might also speculate that had such a problem arisen, then it would have become widely publicised. As such, to the extent that these problems might be expected to have high visibility, then notwithstanding the less than comprehensive nature of our ‘search’, it seems quite possible that no such problems have materialised in the past.

8/12/08

74

6.0 Marketing Strategies for Compost and AD Successful marketing of BTPs is vital in consolidating organics recycling as a viable economic as well as environmental option. With the UK currently trying to increase the amount of biowaste being recycled via both composting and AD, lessons learned from other MS regarding the establishment of successful markets can help formulate the ways forward for developing markets for such products.

A number of positive marketing strategies have been undertaken by various MS in order to secure markets within their countries; these strategies are summarised in Section 6.1. However, as was noted back in the introduction, there remains concern in the UK regarding the use of BTPs, particularly in the agricultural sector. Section 6.2 thus details any perception issues associated with the use of BTPs that have occurred in other parts of the EU, and how they have subsequently been addressed. The majority of this information is derived from questionnaire responses.

6.1 Marketing Strategies All markets work as an interplay between supply and demand. In addition, all markets are structured, to greater or lesser degrees, by state actions. These actions are generally designed to reduce the risks associated with impersonal transactions between individuals who may not know each other, and who may have never met.

In the case of BTPs, strategies for the development of the market include the very same standards discussed in Section 3.0. To the extent that markets are structured by state actions, these actions have been focused, in the case of BTPs, on rules and regulations designed to restrict the degree to which inferior products are marketed as compost, and the areas / types of soil where they can be applied.

These measures are important, but they are focused on ‘preventing the negative’ consequences of production and use of BTPs. This can underpin market development, but it does not, in itself, help to increase demand. Indeed, some commentators argue that the focus on such standards implies a focus on ‘negative aspects’ of BTPs rather than on their positive attributes.

There are a number of means through which demand for use of BTP in agriculture can be increased. Fundamentally, however, farmers need to be able to trust the materials they are using. UK farmers have considerable experience with using sludge from waste water treatment in agriculture, albeit that some concerns have arisen in this context in the past, these now largely being addressed through the Safe Sludge Matrix. However, they have less experience of dealing with BTPs, especially those including food waste in the feedstock.

Given the central focus of this study, the emphasis in this sub-section is on measures which increase demand for compost. These focus more on the positive attributes of compost, how to give comfort to end-users around the use of the material, and how awareness of these can be promoted in the market place.

6.1.1 Quality Assurance Systems

Quality assurance systems have played a key role in improving the status of compost in the eyes of end users in a number of the different EU Member States. Quality assurance systems (QASs) seek to make the link between BTP production and the markets for BTP


75

application. As outlined in a previous report for WRAP,70 QASs ‘start’ where statutory standards following the precautionary principle normally end. Statutory standards have tended to focus on the prevention of harm, or the avoidance of negative consequences from the application of BTPs. It is rare for statutory standards to address themselves to issues related to specific markets for BTP application. Exceptions here are sewage sludges and products used in organic agriculture. For sewage sludges, the regulations concerning applications are frequently prescribed (as, to some extent, in the UK through the Sludge Use in Agriculture Regulations). For products used in organic agriculture, the product standard in terms of PTE concentrations is closely related to the end-use application. For other products though, QASs close the recycling loop for (usually source-separated) organic residues.

QASs focus on meeting the demands of end-users. In this sense, where statutory standards are in place, QASs complement these. In countries where no, or only very limited statutory standards exist, QASs are important in the recovery of organic waste because they can seek to control quality at all stages of the treatment of organic residues, such as:

Separate collection / quality of feedstock Quality assurance may require that inspections on the quality of feedstock are carried out frequently to ensure that end products are of the desired quality, and have the desired characteristics. Such inspections can be used to suggest measures for improvement (for example, in approaches to source-separation). At a more practical level, they might also support BTP producers as they seek to ensure that batches received for treatment are suitable for the process (if they are not, loads may be rejected). Finally, they may assist in traceability of batches;

Plant engineering Errors in the plant engineering can be quickly identified via quality controls. Regarding the issue of hygiene, quality assurance also serves to guarantee worker protection;

Compost production Only regular or continuous process monitoring and recording as well as constant quality and product checks can ensure errors in compost production are avoided;

Marketing End-users, including farmers, are likely to seek a standardised quality BTP. Typically, this is guaranteed by the quality assurance system. Statutory standards are useful here since they require testing and evaluation before it can be determined whether the material is of acceptable quality. A QAS improves confidence levels that the product offered is consistently of a specified quality and conforms to statutory requirements. An associated quality symbol can lend support to any marketing efforts of the BTP producer;

Public relations work In order to improve the public perception of BTPs, some public relations activity is

70 Hogg, D., Barth, J., Favoino, E., Centemero, M., Caimi, V., Amlinger, F., Devliegher, W., Brinton, W. and Antler, S. (2002). Comparison of Compost Standards Within the EU, North America and Australasia. Report for the Waste and Resources Action Programme.

8/12/08

76

important. For each individual BTP producer to undertake this would be expensive. QASs benefit, in this respect, from economies of scale to the extent that as their membership grows, a more concerted PR campaign can be developed at reduced costs to individual producers. A positive image for BTPs can be developed on the basis of assured quality, and through use of a quality symbol for the compost product;

Application Under QASs, it is typical to require the characteristics of a given BTP to be declared so that end-users can understand the appropriateness, or otherwise, of a given BTP for their purposes. Hence, analytical tests are carried out, the results of which form the basis for this declaration and associated recommendations for use. This is crucial in order for the end-use market to make the correct decision about the quality nature of the BTP, its appropriateness for the application in question, and the appropriate application rate in the context of that application;

Product range In the ideal case, QASs develop a range of products with specific characteristics, more-or-less tailored to specific end-use markets. QASs can do this to the extent that they understand, as a result of analytical testing, the properties of BTPs and the extent of their fluctuation in well-operated plants. This ‘variance’ can also help end-users make their decisions about appropriate products for use;

Policy/regulation Through statistical evaluation of the test results, the legislators are made familiar with the present standard of BTPs and the ‘performance frontier’ of composting / digestion plants. Such data can be used to inform the development of policies and regulations that are appropriate for the current practical situation. Indeed, as discussed in Section 3.2.3 above, many countries’ pragmatic approach to setting standards has been informed by a desire to apply the precautionary principle, but in a manner contextualised by ‘what is actually possible’. As such, this type of data is extraordinarily useful in understanding the key characteristics and possibilities of composting / digestion plants, as well as the characteristics of BTPs and their variation with changes in the input feedstocks;

Certification A quality assurance system is a pre-condition for the certification of composting plants, e.g. the EU-Standard ISO 9000 and ISO 14000.

Besides these points, all marketing analysis over recent years shows that users of compost demand a standardised quality product that is verified by independent organisations. A study in the south of Germany showed that 94% of the commercial users were making this a pre-condition of use.

Market research carried out in the state of Lower Saxony in Germany concerning the expectations of the green sector regarding compost led to the apparently contradictory result that the quality symbol seems to be relatively unimportant in their eyes (see Table 14). However, on reflection, it can be appreciated that whilst other elements were rated as being of higher priority than a QAS symbol, these elements are, in fact, themselves, usually an integral part of any QAS (or are implied by the existing regulatory standards). By encompassing all such parameters, QASs ought to give comfort to end-users concerning these issues. Indeed, an upshot of the study was a new communication strategy in the


77

German Compost Quality Assurance Organisation BGK which clearly pointed out what the quality assurance system contains and what stands behind the symbol.

Table 14: Expectations of the Green Sector for Compost Products

Percentage of interviewed persons Requirement

65% Compost use should not create health problems 64% Low content of heavy metals 61% Analysis by approved labs 56% No impurities (glass, stones...) 52% No seeds in the compost 48% Information about raw material 43% Good declaration of nutrients 40% Recommendations how to use 36% Compost has a quality symbol 35% Origin of the compost

Source: Hogg, D., Barth, J., Favoino, E., Centemero, M., Caimi, V., Amlinger, F., Devliegher, W., Brinton, W. and Antler, S. (2002). Comparison of Compost Standards Within the EU, North America and Australasia. Report for the Waste and Resources Action Programme.

The introduction of separate collection and composting should preferably go hand-in-hand with the introduction of statutory standards or, much less preferably, a voluntary quality assurance system. Countries advanced in their experience of composting have recognised this and have developed systems or are preparing them at present (see Section 6.1.1.1 for details of systems in place). The more advanced QASs tend to be supported by statutory standards. An exception is the Swedish system and the new voluntary certification scheme in the Netherlands.

Participation in full quality assurance schemes is, in all operating countries except Belgium/Flanders, a voluntary act. However, if the quality standard has established itself (and especially if it is statutory), the market begins to demand these qualities and composting plants come under pressure to furnish proof of quality (this is very much evident in Germany and the Netherlands).

In the UK, the effect of the Quality Protocol for Compost and the PAS100 (as the only approved standard under the Protocol at the time of writing) is likely to lead to production being increasingly oriented to meet PAS100, and to an increase in demand for compost which meets that standard. The effect of the proposed quality protocol for the Production and Use of Quality Outputs from Anaerobic Digestion of Source-Segregated Biodegradable Waste and the proposed PAS110 standard might be expected to have the same effect in terms of digestate, with the implications being potentially more profound, as the system has been developed so early in the development of the industry for AD of source-segregated biodegradable wastes in the UK.

8/12/08

78

6.1.1.1 Compost Quality Assurance Schemes in the Various Member States

The main source of the information provided in this section is Barth et al. (2008).71

Austria

In Austria, a fully-established quality assurance system exists that is based on Austrian Standards ÖNORM S2206 Part 1 and 2 and Technical Report ONR 192206, published by the Austrian ÖNORM Standardisation Institute. Up until now, two non-profit associations have adopted these standards for granting a compliance certification with the QAS:

The Compost Quality Society of Austria KGVÖ (Kompostgüteverband Österreich)

The Compost & Biogas Association – Austria (ARGE Kompost & Biogas – Österreich)

The certification schemes address the operational process and quality management, as well as final product approval. Compost can get product status if it meets one of the 3 classes based on precautionary requirements (class A+ (top quality for organic farming), class A "Quality compost" (suitable for use in agriculture, horticulture, hobby gardening) and class B (minimum quality for "compost", restricted use in non-agricultural areas).

Under the Compost Quality Society of Austria (KGVÖ), large scale compost producers, supplemented by experts, grant an additional quality seal for the marketing of high quality composts on the basis of the officially acknowledged quality assurance system. External labs collect the samples and undertake the

analyses. Evaluation of the results, documentation and granting of the label is carried out by an independent quality committee with expert members from the KGVÖ (16 members - 300.000 t capacity).

Compost & Biogas Association Austria (ARGE Kompost & Biogas) was founded to establish the decentralised composting of separately collected

biowaste in cooperation with agriculture (on-farm composting). Nowadays the association has grown to a full-scale quality assurance organisation on the basis of the common Austrian standards. ARGE uses external auditors for sample taking, plant inspection, evaluation, documentation and certification of the plants. (370 members - 300,000 t capacity).

Belgium

The fully established statutory quality assurance system for compost in the Flanders region is operated by the non-profit Flemish compost organisation VLACO vzw, with its members from municipalities, government and composting plants (around 40 green and biowaste plants with 840.000 t of capacity). Based on the Flemish Regulation on Waste Prevention and Management

(VLAREA), VLACO vzw show a unique but effective integrated approach, undertaking a broad range of tasks. The organisation executes: 1) Waste prevention and home composting programmes;



79

2) Consultation and advice for process management including co-composting and co-digestion;

3) Sampling, organisation of the analysis and evaluation of the results; 4) Organisation of field trials and development of application information; and 5) Marketing and public relations for organic waste recycling, particularly for compost.

By means of this integrated approach, the whole organic loop from source material to the use of the final product is covered. Nevertheless, some modifications have recently been made in order to include elements of ISO 9000 and the Total Quality Management TQM, the quality assurance of anaerobic digestion residuals and of manure into the system. In TQM the input (the bio or green waste), the process and the output are monitored and analysed. Standards are placed on the input material to prevent dilution.

Depending on source materials and product characteristics, up to 15 different products can be certified (statutory) and labelled (voluntarily) by VLACO vzw.

The Czech Republic

A voluntary quality assurance scheme proposed by the regional Environmental and Agricultural Agency ZERA is in preparation for 2008 following implementation of the new biowaste ordinance.

The main task is to create a compost market by certifying compost products and organising a practical inspection and control of the compost. The certification scheme is based on requirements of the Czech Institute of Accreditation in agreement with international norm CSN EN ISO/ IEC 45011:1998.

Germany

There is a fully established voluntary quality assurance system for compost and anaerobic digestion residuals where the Compost Quality Assurance Organisation (Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost BGK) is the carrier of the RAL compost quality label. BGK is recognised by RAL, the German Institute for Quality

Assurance and Certification, as being the organisation to handle monitoring and controlling of the quality of compost in Germany.

The BGK was founded as a non-profit organisation in order to monitor the quality of compost. Through consistent quality control and support of the compost producers in the marketing and application sectors, the organisation promotes composting as a key element of modern recycling management. 425 composting and 67 digestion plants with 5.9 million tonnes of capacity take part

in the quality assurance system and have applied for the RAL quality label. Besides the central office, a quality committee works as the main supervision and expert body in the quality assurance system. In addition, BGK runs a database which details all indicators for the composting plants and analyses results of the products. The database currently includes more than 35,000 data sets.

The BGK has defined a general product criteria quality standard (the RAL quality label GZ 251 for fresh and mature compost as well as for potting soil compost and for different types of digestion residuals RAL GZ 245 (new since 2007, RAL GZ 246 for digestion product residuals from treatment renewable resources (e.g. energy crops)) and has established a nationwide system for external monitoring of plants and of compost and digestion products.

8/12/08

80

The quality assurance system comprises the following elements:

Definition of suitable inputs in accordance with biowaste and fertiliser regulation;

Operation control- plant visits by independent quality managers;

External and internal monitoring;

Quality criteria and quality label to demonstrate the product quality;

Compulsory declaration and information on correct application; and

Documentation for the competent authorities.

The success of this system in Germany is illustrated by the fact that the authorities exempt member plants from some control requirements which are subject to the waste legislation. Thus quality assured compost has a "quasi" product status in Germany.

Hungary

A voluntary Hungarian Compost Quality Assurance System has been prepared (but not implemented) by the Hungarian Compost Association and is waiting for the revision of the existing regulations that are intended for sewage sludge and

fertilisers and are not applicable for composting.

The Hungarian Compost Association completed the framework of the assurance system (similar to the German BGK and Austrian KGVÖ examples) in 2006 and is now waiting for the new Hungarian Statutory rule about production, nominating, marketing and quality assurance for composts.

Basic elements of the future Compost Quality Assurance System (implementation due in 2009) are:

1) Raw material list (permissive list)

2) Compost Classes

The ordinance will define three different quality classes for compost based on the contaminant content and will also identify associated applications.

The classes (similar to the Austrian ones) will be: Class A - top quality (suitable for organic farming use) Class B - high quality (suitable for agricultural use) Class C - minimum quality (not suitable for agricultural use)

3) Quality control

Independent sample taking and analysis is intended.

Italy

Voluntary quality assurance is operated by the Italian Compost Association CIC. It started as a certification system for compost products in order to show compliance with the national fertiliser regulation. In short, the quality label ensures fulfilment of statutory standards (assessment

of compliance is usually an issue due to the rather poor performance of controlling authorities, hence CIC aims to reinforce the “declaration of compliance”). Within the scheme, samples are made by certificated personnel from the Italian Composting Association (CIC) and analyzed at a single accredited laboratory. The scheme is, however turning into a full quality assurance system e.g. with preparation of certifying the entire production process and above all (as requested by consumers) the traceability of compost.


81

The CIC Quality Label is considered to be a very important initiative for the industry, because it provides an element of security when consumers and operators are making their choices. Currently, the quantities of compost that can be certified amount to approximately which represents approximately 20% of Italian production.

Luxembourg

A statutory system which relies on the German Quality Assurance System and on the German Organisation (Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost e.V. BGK). The request to execute a "quality assurance system like the one of BGK or similar" is

part of the licensing procedure for every composting plant. Missing alternatives have established the BGK system in Luxembourg as the one and only. All independent sampling, control functions and documentation functions are executed by the BGK representatives (5 compost plants with around 50.000 t/y total capacity are part of the scheme).

The Netherlands

After 10 years of experience, the Dutch Government decided that not the quality but the nutrients are the primary precautionary problem regarding compost. Less strict heavy metal thresholds and no continuous obligations for control have resulted. In addition, the application of compost is now nutrient-load limited. All compost which is used for crops which grow in the soil must be independently certified, with a very strict threshold for glass. The markets for compost are not predictable, thus the production of almost all biowaste composts will be certified in future and compost certification will become quasi-statutory.

For vegetable, fruit and garden (VFG) waste the certification is operated by independent institutes/auditors with independent sample takers in cooperation with the Dutch Waste Management Association DWMA/VA. The around 24 VA member plants treat 1.5 million tonnes of VFG waste from separate collection.

This new scheme will replace the former costly KEUR certification system operated by the Dutch certification system KIWA.

The BVOR Dutch Association of Compost Plants manages the certification system in both the green waste and VFG sectors which do not require external sampling, but require independent institutes/auditors for the evaluation of the process and to analyse the results. 50 green waste composting plants with 1.7

million tonnes of capacity (including 0.15 million tonnes of VFG) are members of the BVOR.

Sweden The voluntary quality assurance system for compost and digestion products is operated by the Swedish Waste Management Association, Avfall Sverige, together with Swedish Standardisation Institute SP. For the moment Sweden has no statutory standard, but the necessity of standards is clearly seen by the involved parties and by the government. Producers and users are of the opinion that sustainable recycling of organic wastes demands clear regulations regarding what is suitable to be recycled and how it should be managed and controlled. A well-founded quality assurance programme definitely increases sustainable recycling of organic wastes. The regulations for the voluntary Swedish certification of compost and digestion residues are based on purely source-separated organic waste, with special emphasis on the acceptability of raw materials for input, the suppliers, the collection and transportation, the intake, treatment processes, and the end product, together with the declaration of the products and recommendations for use. 6 digestion and 1 composting plant are included in the

8/12/08

82

certification system and have applied for the certificate.

It should be recalled that for all end-users, BTPs are but one of a range of materials, or blends / combinations of materials, which could be used in specific circumstances. As such, BTPs which conform to and are produced under the requirements of QASs do not just compete with ‘other BTPs not covered by QAS’, but they compete with a range of materials which have little or no association with ‘waste’. In this situation, only BTPs of higher quality will be sought out by the market. Therefore BTPs outside of quality assurance or certification regimes will, increasingly, tend to be able to access only local markets around the composting plant (where the plant manager stakes a personal reputation on quality and gives confidence for their customers), or in restoration projects (such as at landfill sites), or in situations where the producer and end-user (typically, the farmer) are one and the same person (in which case, they have a personal stake in ensuring BTPs are of the requisite quality).

The central role of quality assurance can be seen in countries with a developed composting system such as Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium (Flanders). These countries have established an extensive quality management system for composting plants and digestion plants. Barth et al. report that around 700 composting plants in the EU operate under a formal quality assurance system.72 Quality assurance typically comprises the following elements:

Raw material/feedstock type and quality

Limits for hazardous substances

Hygiene requirements (sanitisation)

Quality criteria for the valuables (e.g. organic matter)

External monitoring of the product and the production

In-house control at the site for all batches (temperature, pH, salt)

Quality label or a certificate for the product

Annual external quality certification of the site and its successful operations

Product specifications for different application areas

Recommendations for use and application information.

In some cases, quality assurance is purely voluntary, on private initiative, but more often it is required or promoted by legislation or regulatory authorities. Sometimes there are exemptions.

It should be noted, in respect of quality control, that it is common today for compost sampling and analysis to be carried out following national legal provisions and standards, which are not always comparable. However, the European Commission has already given a



83

standardisation mandate to CEN for the development of horizontal standards in the field of sludge, biowaste and soil (Mandate M/330). The mandate considers standards on sampling and analytical methods for hygienic and biological parameters, as well as inorganic and organic parameters. Consequently, the CEN Technical Board (BT) created a Task Force for Horizontal Standards in the fields of sludge, biowaste and soil (CEN/BT TF 151). On most sampling and analytical topics, the final consultation and validation of the draft standards took place in autumn 2007.73 The final decision on the appropriateness of the standards for treated biowaste is expected for the meeting of the BT Task Force (BT/F 151). Until horizontal standards elaborated under the guidance of CEN Task Force 151 become available, testing and sampling may also be carried out in accordance with test methods developed by Technical Committee CEN 223 (Soil improvers and growing media).74

6.1.1.2 Control and Monitoring Systems

Any certification or quality assurance system is only as good as its control and monitoring mechanisms. Market analysis in Germany, for example, showed that besides a standardised product, independent verification of quality is a basic requirement amongst compost users. In the absence of a significant degree of independence in the system, a quality assurance system will struggle to generate sufficient confidence in the quality of the monitored product.

Independent monitoring can consist of independent sample-taking, independent analysis by approved laboratories, independent evaluation of the results and an independent production control. There are differences in monitoring systems in the various countries. Common to all is that the analyses may only be performed by approved laboratories. Independent sample-taking is similarly organised.

The German BGK incorporates an external monitoring system which consists of independent sample taking and analysing by approved laboratories. Poor experiences led to the requirement that the results of the analysis have to be sent by the laboratory first to the quality assurance organisation, and then to the composting plant. This avoids ‘corrections’, or efforts by the composting plant to change the results through new analysis after receiving the first set of test results.

The German system concentrates on the quality of the final product, so oversight of the production process is not carried out, other than in respect of the need to guarantee hygiene (temperature / time regime). A process inspection is only undertaken once a year where regional consultants from BGK complete a checklist. Some regionally valid laws and the Biowaste Ordinance stipulate aspects of process control to satisfy increasing demands concerning hygiene. The philosophy behind the German quality assurance system is that the quality of the end product is far more important than the process involved. If the quality of the end product is high, the raw materials and the production technique do not matter (or, more likely, are probably, in an implicit sense, of the required standard). There are really only two exceptions to this general approach: some may require that the essential contents of raw material types be declared; or the hygienic effectiveness of the decomposition

73 See also: www.ecn.nl/horizontal

74 See http://www.cenorm.be/cenorm/index.htm

8/12/08

84

process must be assured. Considering the end product appreciably simplifies the structure and inspection scope of a compost quality assurance system. This is particularly significant in view of the fact that industrial organic residues and biodegradable plastics are increasingly likely to be composted in future.

It should also be pointed out that good raw materials do not guarantee high-quality compost. Errors during the compost production can also produce very poor quality end products, so the product is a testimony to both inputs and process.

Since 2008, the newly introduced Dutch certification system operates using independent auditors and partially-independent sample-taking (not required for all samples from the BVOR green waste plant members). Where compost is to be used to grow crops in the soil, the compost must be certified. The fate of the compost produced from plants is typically unpredictable, but with nearly 80% of Dutch compost ending up in agricultural use, more or less all compost consequently requires certification. For certification according to the VA standard, the biowaste/VFG plant members have to have HACCAP in place and must undertake a risk assessment. All Dutch biowaste plants must adhere to the ISO 9000/ 14000 standards, have VA product certification in place, and have independent sampling undertaken at least four times a year. In this way, the plants demonstrate that they comply with the environmental and process requirements and the necessary safety rules accepted as providing sufficient risk assessment by the Dutch competent authorities.

A similar system where the certification organisation visits the plant for auditing – sometimes without announcement – and checks the production process, the required documentation and the products produced, forms part of the Swedish system. The Swedish system consists of elements of the Quality Management System ISO 9000. Having documentation of all steps in the process and full traceability of the material stream formed the basis for introduction of this system.

The most extended integrated quality management occurs in Belgium. VLACO, in Flanders, promotes source-separation and home-composting, manages the QAS system for the composting plants, advises about compost application and is responsible for compost marketing. In some respects, VLACO plays a similar ‘market development’ role to that which is envisaged for WRAP, but it concentrates on biowastes exclusively. Apart from the cost, this is the most readily recommendable system in the composting world, because all elements of the organic loop are managed by one organisation, which enhances the prospects for optimisation of the whole system.

In Flanders, therefore, there is a two-year two-step system of monitoring the production process and the product. During the first year of operation, together with the VLACO experts, a compost producer has to learn about composting techniques and compost production. The product has to fulfill the basic legal standards in this period. At the beginning of the second year the monitoring activities shift towards the higher product quality (basically there is a demand for a higher organic matter content) and process control.

6.1.1.3 Desirability of Independent Sample Taking

To give credibility to QASs, at least some of the sample-taking must be done by an external and independent monitoring body. If plants do the sample taking by themselves, too many opportunities for falsification arise. Professional compost users would never accept such a situation. This was made clear in Germany, where despite the fact that the German Environment Label ‘Blue Angel’ is well known, compost with this label was not accepted by


85

the landscaping industry because there was no obligation for independent sample taking in the guidelines for the Blue Angel.

However, in order to keep the costs for quality assurance low, the possibilities for having some sample-taking carried out by the compost plants themselves should be considered, particularly in European countries with a low population density, e.g. Scandinavia (due to the distances involved in travel to plants). Thus Sweden has a regulation in its certification system that a large amount of sample taking must be carried out by the plant, albeit only after intensive training of the co-workers responsible for the compost plant. The Swedish certification committee visits the plants once or twice a year, monitors the sample taking, takes samples themselves and has them examined by selected laboratories. If the results do not correspond with the results of the internal sample taking the quality label is not (re)awarded. Experiences with these mixed systems are not, however, very positive.

For this reason the Dutch biowaste plants returned to external sample taking, but also introduced statistical quality management systems in order to reduce the frequency of sampling required, and hence the costs to operators. Consequently, the further below the heavy metal limit values the samples are, the lower the number of samples that have to be taken falls.

Another possible cost-saving approach is that co-workers of the quality assurance organisation take samples on their regular visits to the compost plants (Belgium/Flanders). Alternatively, as in Germany, a system of regional consultants could be organised to take over this work.

In the Austrian Compost Ordinance a special system has been created for agricultural (on-site) composting plants that are using the compost predominantly on their own land. Farmers may take the samples following a statutory scheme if they are members of a quality assurance system, provided they have taken a course in random sampling, and provided they are monitored at least once a year through the QAS.

6.1.1.4 Issues Arising Where Quality is Not Assured

An essential part of a quality assurance system has to be sanctions for composting or digestion plants which no longer fulfil all criteria or requirements. The reasons for non-fulfilment of criteria are many and may range from surpassing the limit values of heavy metals to submitting samples for analysis too late. In 1999 some form of failure regarding the requirements of the QAS was registered for more than 10% of the compost plants in Germany.

In most, if not all countries, therefore, a step-by-step mechanism for applying sanctions exists. As an example the German system is:

Step1: Non-fulfilment is registered: Following registration, written notification will be sent to the treatment plant, giving a time period (e.g. 3-months) for rectifying problems;

Step 2: Demands are still not fulfilled: The quality label is suspended for a limited time, in which the treatment plant may not use the quality label/certification. The monitoring system continues and the treatment plant has to fulfil all requirements over a further period. If there are no problems in this respect, then after this period has elapsed, the quality label can be re-granted;

8/12/08

86

Step 3: If there are still any problems: The Quality Label will be withdrawn. If the plant wishes to participate again in the QAS, they have to re-apply for the Quality Label and re-submit to the approval procedure.

While Step 1 can be an automatic procedure, the second step might be discussed and decided within the committee of independent experts of the BGK. The quality assurance/certification has to have a kind of an official status, as withdrawal affects the economic prospects of the compost plant.

6.1.1.5 QASs and Compost Marketing

There is a strong connection between quality assurance and marketing. Marketing of compost requires a standardised quality product. Composts and digestion residuals which have been quality-tested in accordance with the procedures stipulated by the QAS fully meet these requirements and can be marketed under a ‘quality label’ brand. The analyses carried out enable an objective assessment of the compost which forms the basis for the product declaration and the application recommendations. The net result is a product of defined quality which is therefore marketable and saleable on a large scale.

Further marketing activities of the compost plants are a necessity; even compost with a quality label or a certificate does not sell by itself. The quality label should be able to give the compost and digestate enterprises an excellent start. The elements of the quality assurance system and the associated confidence that this can convey to users are effectively part of the overall marketing strategy of every compost producer, from market research through the introduction of measures to penetrate markets, right up to public relations, advertising and even the labelling of packaging.

It should be stressed that there is no magic formula for ‘compost quality label marketing’ by the individual enterprise. The quality assurance organisation, however, should assist its member plants through various means at its disposal (see Table 15).

Table 15: Marketing activities in the framework of some quality assurance organisations

Country Marketing activity

Austria (KGVÖ)

• Common strategy is in preparation • Compost application leaflets for the main application ranges are published • Monthly newsletter

Belgium/Flanders (VLACO)

• Country wide common marketing on behalf of the plants is done by VLACO with advertisements in newspapers, posters, stickers etc. • Continuous information about application researches (collected in two handbooks) • Quarterly news brochure

Denmark (DAKOFA) • Product sheet which gives sufficient information about the compost

Germany (BGK)

• Marketing aids like stickers, poster, banners are provides • Series of compost application brochures are developed in very close co-operation with experts and organisations in the different application ranges which include product specifications. • Quarterly news brochure and monthly newsletter.

Sweden (RVF) Series of compost and digestate application brochures are in preparation

Source: Hogg, D., Barth, J., Favoino, E., Centemero, M., Caimi, V., Amlinger, F., Devliegher, W., Brinton, W. and Antler, S. (2002). Comparison of Compost Standards Within the EU, North America and Australasia. Report for the Waste and Resources Action Programme.


87

6.1.2 Farm Trials

Another key method of generating interest in the use of BTPs in agriculture can be farm trials. WRAP itself has engaged in a number of these trials. These may take time to generate results, but they have the merit of generating more practical experience with the use of compost in agriculture.

This practical orientation has much to recommend it. Farmers tend to be focused on practice rather than theory. Furthermore, to the extent that there may be concerns and perceptions around the risk associated with use of compost in agriculture, it is impossible to present a view that ‘the risk is zero’. In this context, the effects of trials, and indeed, of longer-term practical experience, may be more effective in encouraging farmers to use compost than an approach which seeks to demonstrate, on paper, the low level of risk associated with compost use.

6.1.3 Use of Incentives

In some situations, farmers have been encouraged to use compost in agriculture as a means to return organic matter to increasingly depleted soils. A recent paper draws attention to interesting Italian experience:75

Some noteworthy attempts to internalize the positive externalities associated with the application of organic matter to soils are to be found in some regions of Italy, where under the scope of Rural Development Plans (2000–06) (Regulation of the EU 1257, on sustainable agriculture), farmers receive financial support in exchange for applying organic fertilizers, and in particular, composted products.

Region Emilia Romagna has already been paying, for a period of a few years, some 130 € ha-1 to make use of compost, and so promote the build-up of soil organic carbon in depleted soils; and

Region Piemonte pays 220 € ha-1 for farmers to use up to 25 tonnes d.m. on depleted soils over a 5-year period (in order to take into account crop rotation).

Such grants might be considered precedent-setting, when it comes to environmental policy-making and economic instruments for driving agronomic practices – and the related waste management practices – towards a more sustainable approach to the apparently related issues of climate change and soil quality.

In principle, there may be arguments for such support to farmers, particularly in regions where soil organic matter status is in decline, or where it is already at levels where it is becoming a limiting factor on crop growth. These may be worth considering in future, especially if, as some of the science suggests, the rate of loss of organic carbon from soils increases as the climate changes.76

75 Favoino, E. and Hogg, D. (2008) The Potential Role of Compost in Reducing Greenhouse Gases, Waste Management Research, 2008, 26, pp. 61-69.

76 Bellamy, P.H., Loveland, P.J. Bradley, R.I., Lark, R.M. & Kirk, G.J.D. (2005) Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978–2003. Nature, 437, pp. 245–248.

8/12/08

88

6.1.4 The Efforts of Producers

Whilst QASs can help to promote the image of quality BTPs, ultimately, producers of BTPs should not expect the market to develop for them. Even among the participants of any given QAS, there may be considerable variation in the level of skill and the sophistication of strategies used to market BTPs to end-users. More and less entrepreneurial producers will be present in the market place at any one time. The role of producers themselves should not be trivialised, therefore, in understanding how to market products to specific end users. Some producers may be able to work with manufacturers of other soil improvers to develop bespoke products through blending of materials. Some producers may produce to a range of specifications, whilst others may concentrate on (possibly) lower-value bulk grades.

In short, whilst instruments are available, and are used, to enhance demand for BTPs, much rests ultimately with the producer and the attention given to marketing products to a defined specification which are appropriate to identified end use markets.

6.2 Perception Issues Austria

Perception issues have, on the whole, been minimal in Austria, with the householders taking a strongly positive approach to organics recycling, and open discussions between representatives of the Ministry and Chamber of Agriculture on heavy metal and nutrient loads ensuring market confidence in the set thresholds. However, in 2007 the monopolistic sugar industry (AGRANA) adopted a ban on the use of biowaste compost on contracted sugar beet plots. This ban resulted from a case where animal tissue DNA had been detected in a German consignment of sugar beet chips that was to be exported to the UK. Subsequent scientific investigations were conducted by acknowledged federal research stations in Germany, giving clear evidence that there is no link between the animal DNA traces and the use of compost. Consequently, the German sugar industry withdrew the ban; in contrast, the ban is currently still in place in Austria. The main concern raised following the introduction of the ABPR for the majority of farmers was that they felt offended at the implied need for additional requirements; subsequent discussions took place between the farmers and vets/agricultural officials to ensure the ABP regulation was not misinterpreted, particularly in respect of over-regulation. It is worth re-iterating that in Austria, a large proportion of composting activity (ca. 50 % of capacity) takes place on-farm, with farmers sometimes being involved in the collection of household biowaste.

Belgium

There have been no problems, either perceived or real, with the use of compost or digestate in agriculture within Belgium. Nonetheless, the use of BTPs in agriculture is minimal (8 % in 2006), not because of problems with ABP-derived material, but because farmers get paid up to €25 per tonne to use manure on their fields, whereas they have to pay to use BTPs. Due to the VFG definition (which excludes ABP), there was no significant discussion following the introduction of the Regulation, other than to acknowledge that any plants using ABP input materials would need to meet the ABPR requirements (a requirement which is regulated by the Flanders Public Waste Agency OVAM).

The Czech Republic

To begin with, there were problems with some outputs from composting facilities producing composts containing heavy metal concentrations greater than the limits detailed in Section 3.1.2. Since these problems, the Central Institute of Supervising and Testing in Agriculture


89

(CISTA) now carries out expert supervision of BTPs to ensure that they comply with all standards and regulations. Householders initially had some perception issues with the odour related to both compost and digestate plants, but no problems seem to have arisen following their implementation. There are no reports of concerns on the part of farmers around the use of ABP-derived composts on their land, with only minimal discussion occurring regarding the ABPR between vets, agricultural officials, waste officials and composters.

Denmark

It is felt that the key perception issue in Denmark has been to ensure that consumers (particularly in agriculture) are happy that they are not purchasing anything which poses a risk to human or animal health (particularly with previous outbreaks of diseases such as BSE). Traceability is often mentioned as a particular problem for the industry. However, consumer organisations have not yet publicly said anything against the recycling of waste via composting or AD; indeed the recycling of household waste as well as sludges are mainly viewed in a positive light, being promoted by associations such as the Danish Society for the Protection of Nature. Obstacles to further increases in composting have mostly been in relation to successful collection of source-separated biowaste, and in overcoming the short-term slower-release of nitrogen from compost to the soil compared to from mineral fertilisers.77

Following the introduction of the ABPR, farmers initially no longer wanted to accept household waste as a feedstock material for their on-farm AD plants. The Danish EPA decided to let the veterinary service discuss, and ultimately sanction, the use of ABP by such plants. The overall proportion of sewage sludge used in commercial compost and AD plants is decreasing over time in favour of source-separated kitchen and green wastes, because the BTPs derived from sewage sludge no longer achieve the standards that farmers are now demanding to maintain an ‘ecologically-safe’ farm. This comment is of potential interest given that in the UK, many farmers remain comfortable with the use of sewage sludge on their farmlands.

Finland

There are no perceived or reported issues with the use of BTPs in agriculture. Prior to 2005, the acceptance of BTPs by farmers was not that high, but the situation has since changed on account of strong educational campaigns and marketing. There are no concerns related to the use of ABP in compost/digestate.

France

The perceived risk associated with the use of BTPs in agriculture is low in France; farmers are used to applying sewage sludge, sewage sludge compost and mixed waste compost on their land. No problems have been reported with the use of BTPs on agricultural land, and the public do not appear to have taken much interest in such BTP applications. Indeed, the

77 Luxhøi, J., Poulsen, P. H. B., Møller, J. and Magid, J. (2008). Quality Parameters of Compost Amended with Chitin. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

8/12/08

90

more critical comments seem to come from outside France, given the relatively lax control on PTEs via the French standards.

Germany

Separate collection and composting in Germany was, from the beginning, widely supported by the population. Source segregation and the use of compost is a part of everyday life and only forms part of public discussion when ‘biobin’ collection fees rise.

In those BTP markets other than agriculture, especially in the landscaping and growing media sector, a positive perception of compost has existed more or less from the outset (at least, once it was clear that composts derived from mixed waste were no longer to be available), because representatives from those business sectors were substantially involved in the foundation of the German Compost Quality Assurance Organisation and the development of standards and application recommendations.

In the early days of composting, the agricultural branch organisation and authorities were typically against the use of compost in agriculture, arguing that they did not want to become the landfill of the nation. Politically, rivalry existed between the Ministry of the Environment that was promoting compost use and the Ministry of Agriculture that argued against its use. In addition the agricultural organisation was pushing to have the same strong financial support for compost use as was common at the time for sewage sludge. Nevertheless, personal relationships between a compost producer and a farmer helped, in the early days of composting, to build up the necessary confidence for the use of compost in agricultural practice.

Continuing development of trust between compost producers and farmers, success stories within the farming sector, and the strictly quality-oriented work of BGK all helped build confidence within the agricultural sector on the use of compost. Nevertheless, it took nearly 10 years before the first generally available brochure for compost application in agriculture was published. Confidence was, nonetheless, sufficient that even when animal protein was found in sugar beets and the sugar beet organisation subsequently forbade their member farms to use compost (a loss of 30% of the German compost market), the sugar beet industry remained open to discussions with the compost sector, and to the outcomes of research, which finally identified the source of the protein as coming not from compost, but from rodents living on the sugar beet storage piles at the border of the fields.

Only over the last 4 to 5 years has the agricultural sector begun to appreciate fully the positive benefits associated with the use of compost. Supported by discussions at a number of annual conferences in Germany, quality compost is no longer seen to pose a risk to agricultural producers. The challenges that the agricultural sector now faces, such as the need for soil organic matter, humus management and the recovery of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, all tend to support the need for close cooperation with the compost/digestate sector. In particular, increasing mineral fertiliser prices (up 50% in the last 3 years) during dry summers, where yield differences between crops fertilised with or without compost have been easily detectable on account of the increased water holding capacity, have highlighted the advantages of compost for farmers on a practical level.

The positive perception is, for example, demonstrated by the fact that the sugar beet industry in Germany now requires quality assured compost, and that quality compost is listed in the list of material permissible for use by the German Organic Farmers Organisation.


91

It is important to note that this success would probably not have been possible without the strict high quality approach of the German BGK. Lower quality input materials such as those derived from MBT outputs have not been allowed to be integrated into the quality system, despite trials being undertaken in this respect.

Hungary

In terms of the householder and the farmer, there have been no real or perceived problems associated with the use of compost in agriculture in Hungary. Farmers have low awareness overall of the ABP regulation and associated requirements.

Ireland

Initially, The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) in Ireland did not want ABP-derived compost to be applied to pastureland. However, in December 2006, application regulations were agreed for compost derived from catering waste, with a 21 day and 60 day access-ban for farmed animals and pigs, respectively. For former foodstuffs and fish waste, this ban was extended to 3 years. Recently, however, the 3 year ban has been lifted and the 21 and 60 day access-bans now apply for all ABP-compost (see Section 5.1).

Neither DAFF nor the Composting Association for Ireland are aware of any householder or farmer perception issues (either current or historical) with the use of compost/digestate on agricultural land. DAFF currently has an ABP Consultative forum which meets every month to discuss any compost-related matters. It has been noted recently (Summer 2007) that farmers would like to move towards a situation where all the compost they use comes from composting facilities which are part of a Quality Assurance Scheme, though such as scheme does not currently exist in Ireland.

Italy

Similar to the situation in Austria, perception issues have been minimal in Italy, with both householders and the agricultural sector taking what is, on-the-whole, a positive approach to organics recycling.

Latvia

There are no issues associated with the use of compost in agriculture in Latvia. The standards for composting and AD listed in Section 3.1 are based on sewage sludge legislation and on the registration and sale of organic fertilisers, rather than being specific to compost alone. Concerns regarding the use of compost in agriculture are minimal; this is reflected in the fact that all composted sewage sludge is currently used for agricultural means. If compost meets the standard requirements then it can be classed as a product according to fertiliser legislation, and sold as such.

Luxembourg

Similar to countries such as Austria and Italy, the response to compost and digestate in both agricultural circles and from the householder has been positive. There have been no reported problems with the use of BTPs on agricultural or other land. In fact, the perception has been very positive on the whole, with nearly 50 % of the compost from the largest plant being used by hobby gardeners.

Netherlands

The perception regarding compost use in the Netherlands is very good, principally because

8/12/08

92

more than 90% of the households are served with separate collections for organic waste. The government was very proactive towards separate collection and composting from the beginning, introducing a countrywide system over a three year period. The quality of the composts produced is very high, with a large range of products offered to meet customers' needs. A national research programme - including all stakeholders - analysed compost markets and customer needs early on in the process.

In addition, compost use and associated peat replacement is one of a range of environmental topics that are discussed in the Netherlands. The good quality and the emphasis that has been placed on product development allow the large Dutch green waste composting plants (up to 70,000 tonnes per annum) to manufacture a broad range of highly specialised products for the growing media and potting soil sector, and to compete with the peat and bark industry. Similarly, the relatively small “family of stakeholders" involved in the composting sector in the Netherlands, including only 18 plant operators, has facilitated some good, practical compromises, and is supported by the Ministries and authorities with an ear for the business needs of both the composters and their customers.

Ongoing discussions between the Ministry and the agricultural sector have occurred around the fact that originally, the regulation only allowed compost to meet any missing nutrient requirements in agricultural soils following standard mineral fertilisation, making compost the ‘second choice’ for farmers. The strict standards set within the Netherlands were set against a background of intensive agriculture within this country, where the soils and groundwater are already polluted. Since 2008, the ‘second choice’ requirement has changed; nevertheless, the Dutch restrictions still make the use of compost in agriculture complicated. Thus the largest Dutch plants typically export compost to Germany, where it is mainly used in agriculture.

Poland

In Poland, there have not been any real or perceived issues surrounding the use of compost or digestate in agriculture by either farmers or the householder. The introduction of the ABP regulations in Poland has led to minimal change in the production of compost, with farmers seeming unconcerned over its introduction.

Risk assessment data has not been used to develop compost or AD methodologies, but risk is minimised by the requirement that BTPs which are to be placed on the market undergo approval and registration by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The process of approval includes testing to check that the BTPs will not impose any risk to human or animal health or the environment. Research results have to be presented to show that there will be no excessive heavy metal uptake into plants, that there is an absence of pathogens such as salmonella and that sufficient quality monitoring is in place. This procedure is thus costly and complex, with only a small amount of compost currently approved as a product for the Polish market.

There is a need for Poland to progress further in its diversion of biodegradable waste to meet the EU landfill directive targets and to address the shortcomings of the current organic fertiliser legislation when applied to compost. Consequently a national regulation regarding composting is currently in preparation which is intended for issue in 2009.

Spain

Farmers do not perceive any problems with the use of BTPs in agriculture as they have a need for organic matter and nutrients, and compost is one avenue for their provision. According to the questionnaire response, a householder survey undertaken by Ategrus


93

(2007) found that 21 % of the interviewed residents believe that compost use is beneficial, with more than 50 % showing a positive approach towards the separate collection of their waste streams, but nearly one third believing that their all waste still ends up at the same plants anyway, reducing the likelihood that they would separate it at source. Spain is however moving towards greater source separation, with new composting plants underway to compliment this change.78 Consequently, there is a need to improve public perception of how waste is handled, and to increase participation in separate collection schemes where they are available. These will form some of the challenges looking forward.

Sweden

There is a strong focus on AD in Sweden due to national support and a demand for upgraded biogas as a fuel for vehicles. Source separation and biological treatment in Sweden are thus well-developed. There is a positive awareness of the need to recycle and reuse organic waste to reduce fossil fuel requirements and climatic impacts. The high quality BTPs produced in Sweden, linked to the control on input materials, has resulted in the majority of BTP standards being based on voluntary agreements rather than requiring statutory regulations. However, the ABP regulation has been fully implemented in Sweden. 98 % of digestate outputs were used in agriculture in 2008. However, there is little use of compost in agriculture, because farmers believe that compost contains less nitrogen than other fertilisers, and because the growing media/substrate market sector is economically more viable for compost plants. There have been no perceived or real problems associated with digestate use in agriculture in Sweden, or regarding the implementation of the ABP regulations by farmers.

Switzerland

Although not strictly a MS, Switzerland provides an example of how, in a short period of time, consumers may lose their confidence in the quality of a product, and the importance of clear marketing associated with high standards.79

In 2002 and 2003, the Swiss government had to take a decision about the future use of sewage sludge as a fertilizer in agriculture. The agricultural sector was nervous because of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy; many long-term users of sewage sludge rapidly lost their confidence in the quality the product, especially when bioactive organic compounds were found to be present in the sludge. Big retailers such as MIGROS and COOP requested that their suppliers stop using sewage sludge. Consequently, the use of sewage sludge in agriculture dropped drastically, even before any restrictive regulation was in force. The government had to find emergency solutions for the elimination of sewage sludge; a wide-ranging research project about compost was started, particularly to try to understand the degree to which fears regarding the quality of BTPs were justified. Results of two research studies demonstrated that the composts in Switzerland were of good quality, but also

78 ECN (2006) Spain: Introduction and Spanish Organic Waste Situation, European Compost Network, [Accessed on 14th September 2008], available at http://www.biowaste.eu/index.php?id=44

79 Fahrni, H-P. (2008). Waste Policy at a Crossroad: How to Balance Contradicting Factors – Extreme Material Recycling, Boom in Energy Use and the Fear of Pollutants. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

8/12/08

94

identified further improvements that were desirable. The research clearly demonstrated the positive effects of the use of compost in preventing plant diseases in agriculture and horticulture. It appears that, rather than having too much biowaste for composting / digestion and a resultant surplus of BTPs, Switzerland now faces a shortage of supply, with energy companies turning to waste as a potential renewable energy supply, and interest in anaerobic digestion growing significantly as a result.

On a final note, the latest European Commission regulation (889/2008) on the “organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production, labelling and control” of 5th September 2008 has detailed a set of rules associated with the organic farming industry. Composted or fermented household waste forms part of the list of acceptable organic fertilisers, with the following description:

Product obtained from source separated household waste, which has been submitted to composting or to anaerobic fermentation for biogas production

Only vegetable and animal household waste

Only when produced in a closed and monitored collection system, accepted by the Member State

Maximum [product] concentrations in mg/kg of dry matter: cadmium: 0.7; copper: 70; nickel: 25; lead: 45; zinc: 200; mercury: 0.4; chromium (total): 70; chromium (VI): 0.

Thus composted or fermented household waste is accepted, at the EU level, as a marketable fertiliser suitable for organic-farming, so long as it is source-separated and does not exceed the concentrations of heavy metals specified. Interestingly, there is no explicit mention of the ABPR, which might indicate a low perception of risk associated with household waste including animal by-products.


95

7.0 Conclusions This report has sought to understand the degree to which the agricultural sector in other EU Member States has had cause to be concerned about the use of compost in their country. The results of our investigations can be summarised as follows:

1. The majority of Member States have developed their own set of standards relating to the production and use of compost/digestate. Part of the rationale has been to gain confidence that their agricultural sector is sufficiently protected from potential risks associated with PTEs, organic contaminants, animal by-products and impurities;

2. Most Member States have, as part of their approach to controlling the quality of BTPs, some measure that either positively includes, or excludes, specific feedstocks from being defined as ‘compost’/digestate. The former is the more common approach. Prominent materials excluded by some countries are as follows:

3. The most prominent waste groups excluded from compost production are:

a. Municipal Sewage sludge: BE/Flanders, CH,80DE81, NL, SE82, UK83

b. Mixed MSW: BE/Flanders, CZ, DE, DK, FI, HU, LU, NL, SE, UK12

c. Paunch (Cat. 2 ABP): CZ, FI, LU

d. Manure (Cat. 2): LU

4. The use of positive lists, and the exclusion of some materials, has helped to give confidence, particularly in those countries with more extensive experience with monitoring compost quality, that the standards set for the concentrations of PTEs can be met;

5. Where PTEs are concerned, some long-term trials indicate that the potential for build up of PTEs in soils is very limited. Indeed, the new system in the Netherlands effectively removes the limit values for the lower quality of compost, reflecting the view that nutrient content, rather than contaminants, should be considered the principle factor limiting compost applications. Sweden also takes a relatively relaxed view with the emphasis being on control of the input feedstocks. This is logical since neither composting nor anaerobic digestion processes are sources of PTEs. The output merely reflects the input feedstock;

80 Being progressively banned going forward.

81 Only excluded for biowaste and green waste composting. Sludge-derived compost is produced and can be applied to agricultural land.

82 Only excluded in the voluntary compost/AD scheme.

83 Only if the compost producer applies for PAS 100 (BSI, 2005) (excludes mixed wastes) and/or Compost Quality Protocol Scheme (Environment Agency, 2007) (excludes mixed wastes and sewage sludge)

8/12/08

96

6. Relatively few countries deploy limit values for organic contaminants. Again, studies indicate that organic contaminants are not a major issue where compost production is concerned as long as feedstocks are controlled. There appears, therefore, to be a link between the controls on input feedstocks and the perceived risks associated with the BTP outputs;

7. Regarding temperature-time relationships for hygienisation, following introduction of the ABPR, most countries retained their existing national standards for catering waste. A notable exception was Austria which, shortly before the ABPR was agreed, had effectively removed any temperature-time relationship within its national Guidelines. However, as a direct result of the ABPR, the Austrian Guideline “State of the Art of Composting” subsequently issued by the Ministry for the Environment recognised a set of 6 different time-temperature regimes for catering wastes. Only Belgium, Hungary, Latvia and Poland make use of the 70ºC for 1 hour ABPR hygienisation process for all allowed ABP input materials, including catering wastes;

8. The majority of countries have some limit for the content of physical impurities in BTPs, typically plastic, metals and stones / glass / inert materials.

9. Such research as has been undertaken seems to suggest that the risks associated with genetic modification of food are acceptably low for, for example, organic farmers;

10. Most Member States apply restrictions, related to the classes of BTPs in national standards, in terms of the applications for which BTPs can be used. The same applies to application rates in terms of the quantity of BTPs which may be applied to land;

11. For those countries for which data of the desired quality are available, agriculture accounts for, on average, 50% of the BTP market. This ranges from a low of just under 10% in Flanders to more than 90% in Spain, though the feedstocks used in Spain include mixed waste. Agriculture provides the market for more or less all digestate produced in those countries for which good data is available. The exception to this rule is Italy, where agriculture accounts for slightly more than 60% of digestates produced;

12. A key element in increasing confidence in the use of BTPs in agriculture has been the development of quality assurance systems on the part of BTP producers;

13. A comprehensive risk assessment for the compost sector has not really been executed in any European country. The key tools and research that have been used to develop the compost and digestate standards are as follows:

a. Knowledge about the use and application of sewage sludge (Sweden, France);

b. Load calculations of heavy metals inputs that lead to an acceptable accumulation in soils (Belgium, Germany, as well as the European Commission);

c. Heavy metal consumption during crop rotations (Netherlands); and

d. Adapting standards from other countries (Luxembourg).

14. Some countries have made alterations to their processing standards as a direct consequence of the ABPR;

15. Some MS have made steps towards validating their own process standards for Category 3 ABP against the process validation tests set out in Annex VI of the amended ABPR (notably the Netherlands and Sweden).

Regarding the ABPR, and risk assessment more generally, there is a sense that the ABPR came, for some countries, at a time when they were relaxing, rather than tightening, their


97

systems for regulating BTPs, based upon experience, and in some cases, the results of long-term trials. Indeed, this appears to reflect limited evidence of genuinely poor experiences with the use of BTPs once systems including both standards and quality assurance have become established. In this respect, it should be noted that key findings regarding perception issues associated with the use of compost and/or digestate in agriculture include the following:

On the whole, incidences where perception associated with the use of compost/digestate in agriculture have been negative appear to have been minimal across the EU.

However, in 2007 the German sugar industry AGRANA implemented a ban on the use of biowaste compost on contracted sugar beet plots. This ban resulted from a case where animal tissue DNA had been detected in a German consignment of sugar beet chips that was to be exported to the UK. Subsequent scientific investigations were conducted by federal research stations in Germany, giving clear evidence that there is no link between the animal DNA traces and the use of compost (with the research identifying the source of the protein from rodents living on the sugar beet storage piles at the border of the fields). Consequently, the German sugar industry withdrew the ban; in contrast, the ban is currently still in place in Austria.

Although there have been no perception problems with compost/AD in Belgium, the use of BTPs in agriculture is minimal (8 % in 2006), not because of problems with ABP-derived material, but because farmers are paid up to €25 per tonne to use manure on their fields (effectively making it difficult for BTPs to compete with manure).

In Denmark, the overall proportion of sewage sludge used in commercial compost and AD plants is decreasing over time in favour of source-separated kitchen and green wastes, because the BTPs derived from sewage sludge no longer achieve the standards that farmers are now demanding to maintain an ‘ecologically-safe’ farm. This comment is of potential interest given that in the UK, many farmers remain comfortable with the use of sewage sludge on their farmlands.

In the early days of composting in Germany, the agricultural branch organisation and authorities were typically against the use of compost in agriculture, arguing that they did not want to become ‘the landfill of the nation’. However, a developing environment of trust between compost producers and farmers, success stories within the farming sector, and the quality-focused work of the quality assurance body in Germany, BGK, all helped to build confidence within the agricultural sector regarding the use of compost. Over the last 4 to 5 years, the agricultural sector has become increasingly aware of the positive benefits associated with the use of compost. Supported by discussions at a number of annual conferences in Germany, quality compost is no longer considered to pose a risk to agriculture. The challenges that the agricultural sector now faces, such as the need for soil organic matter, humus management and the recovery of nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen, all support the need for close cooperation with the compost/digestate sector. In particular, the increasing mineral fertiliser prices (50% over the past 3 years) during dry summers, where yield differences between crops fertilised with or without compost have been easily detectable on account of the increased water holding capacity, have highlighted the advantages of compost for farmers on a practical

8/12/08

98

level.

It has been noted recently (Summer 2007) that farmers in Ireland would like to move towards a situation where all the compost they use comes from composting facilities which are part of a Quality Assurance Scheme, though such as scheme does not currently exist in Ireland.

In conclusion, empirical evidence provides little support for the view that the use of BTPs in agriculture poses an unacceptable risk to farmers, their crops or their livestock, provided that systems are in place which seek to assure the quality of the BTPs. This does not mean there is zero risk associated with the use of compost. Hence, one could not suggest that the apparent absence of such a problem in the past is evidence of the impossibility of problems arising in future. It does however suggest that these risks are minimal and that the systems in place may be providing appropriate means to manage them.

Furthermore, in some countries with longer experience with the use of BTPs in agriculture, the existence of quality assurance schemes has apparently led to an increase in confidence in the use of BTPs in agriculture over time, sometimes in the wake of what were, initially, distinctly unenthusiastic responses to the possible use of compost in agriculture.


99

8.0 References AEA Energy and Environment (2008) The Evaluation of Energy from Biowaste Arisings and Forest Residues in Scotland, Report to SEPA, April 2008.

Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Pollak, M., Peyr, S., Centemero, M. and Caima, V. (2004) Heavy metals and organic compounds from wastes used as organic fertilisers, Study on behalf of the European Commission, Directorate-General Environment, ENV .A.2, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/compost/index.htm

Amlinger, F., Peyr, S., Geszti, J., Dreher, P., Weinfurtner, K. and Nortcliff, S. (2007). Beneficial Effects of Compost Application on Fertility and Productivity of Soils: Literature Study. Report produced for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment and Water Management, Austria.

Amlinger, F. (2008) Implementation of the Animal By-Products Regulation (EC) no 1774/2001 in EU Member States, Presentation at Orbit2008, 13-15th October 2008, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Avfall Sverige (2007) Rapport B2007:01 Alternativa hygieniseringsmetoder, ISSN 1103-4092, Malmö.

Barth, J., Amlinger, F., Favoino, E., Siebert, S., Kehres, B., Gottschall, R., Bieker, M., Löbig, A. and Bidlingmaier, W. (2008). Compost Production and Use in the EU. Report for the European Commission DG/JRC.

Bellamy, P.H., Loveland, P.J. Bradley, R.I., Lark, R.M. & Kirk, G.J.D. (2005) Carbon losses from all soils across England and Wales 1978–2003. Nature, 437, pp. 245–248.

Brändli, R. C., Bucheli, T. D., Kupper, T., Furrer, R., Stadelmann, F. X. and Tarradellas, J. (2005) Persistent Organic Pollutants in Source-separated Compost and its Feedstock Materials – A review of Field Studies, Journal of Environmental Quality, Volume 34, May-June 2005, pp735-60.

Center for Bæredygtig Arealanvendelse og Forvaltning af Miljøfremmede Stoffer, Kulstof og Kvælstof, Aalborg Universitet. (2002). Det Strategiske Miljøforskningsprogram 1997-2000, Slutrapport.Http://Info.Au.Dk/Smp/Smp_Dk/Publikationer/Slutrapport/KH%20-%20Slutrapport.Pdf

Deller, B., Kluge, R., Mokry, M., Bolduan, R. and Trenkle, A. (2008). Effects of Mid-Term Application of Composts on Agricultural Soils in Field Trials of Practical Importance: Possible Risks. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

Defra (2007) Waste Strategy for England, Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, May 2007.

ECN (2006) Spain: Introduction and Spanish Organic Waste Situation, European Compost Network, [Accessed on 14th September 2008], available at http://www.biowaste.eu/index.php?id=44

ECN (2007) Soil, Sludge and Treated Biowaste – Determination of Impurities and Stones,

8/12/08

100

European Standard, available at http://www.ecn.nl/docs/society/horizontal/BT_TF151_WI_CSS99049_Impurities_1332007(E).pdf

Elsinga, W. (2008) EU No 1774/2002: Experiences with Process Validation of Biowaste Composting & Digestion in the Netherlands, Orbit Conference Proceedings, October 2008: Moving Organic Waste Recycling Towards Resource Management and Biobased Economy.

Eunomia (2004) Feasibility Study Concerning Anaerobic Digestion in Northern Ireland, Final Report for Bryson House, ARENA Network and NI2000.

Fahrni, H-P. (2008). Waste Policy at a Crossroad: How to Balance Contradicting Factors – Extreme Material Recycling, Boom in Energy Use and the Fear of Pollutants. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

Favoino, E. and Hogg, D. (2008) The Potential Role of Compost in Reducing Greenhouse Gases, Waste Management Research, 2008, 26, pp. 61-69.

Hogg, D., Barth, J., Favoino, E., Centemero, M., Caimi, V., Amlinger, F., Devliegher, W., Brinton, W. and Antler, S. (2002). Comparison of Compost Standards within the EU, North America and Australasia. Report for the Waste and Resources Action Programme.

Hogg, D., Barth, J., Schleiss, K. and Favoino, E. (2007) Dealing with Food Waste in the UK, Report to WRAP, March 2007.

International Solid Waste Association. (2006). Biological Waste Treatment Survey. Edited by W. Rogalski and C. F. Schleiss

Jacobs UK (2008) Development of a Policy Framework for the Tertiary Treatment of Commercial and Industrial Wastes: Technical Appendices, Report for SNIFFER / SEPA, March 2008.

Kjellberg Christensen, K., Carlsbaek, M., Norgaard, E., Warberg, K. H., Venelampi, O. and Brøgger, M. (2002) Supervision of the sanitary quality of composting in the Nordic countries, TemaNord 2002:567, Report produced for the Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark..

Kluge, R., Deller, B., Flaig, H., Schultz, E. and Reinhold, J. (2008). Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture: Research Results of a Long Term Study in the Federal Republic of Germany, Final Report April 2008. Landwirtschaftliches Technologiezentrum Augustenberg LTZ, Karlsruhe.

Kuch, B., Rupp, S., Fischer, K., Kranert, M. and Metzger, J. W. (2007) Determination of Organic Contaminants in Composts and Digestates in the State of Baden-Württemberg, Germany, Forschungsbericht FZKA-BWPLUS, Förderkennzeichen BWR 240246.

Kupper, T., Brändli, R. C., Bucheli, T. D., Stämpfli, C., Zennegg, M., Berger, U., Edder, P., Pohl, M., Niang, F., Iozza, S., Müller, J., Schaffner, C., Schmid, P., Huber, S., Ortelli, D., Becker-Van Slooten, K., Mayer, J., Bachmann, H-J., Stadelmann, F. X. and Tarradellas, J. (2008) Organic Pollutants in Compost and Digestate: Occurrence, Fate and Impacts. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

Luxhøi, J., Poulsen, P. H. B., Møller, J. and Magid, J. (2008). Quality Parameters of Compost Amended with Chitin. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the


101

Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

Mallard, P., Gabrielle, B., Vignoles, M., Sablayrolles, C., Le Corff, V., Carrere, M., Renou, S., Vial, E., Muller, O., Pierre, N. and Coppin, Y. (2005) Impacts Environnementaux de la Gestion Biologique des Déchets: Bilan des Connaissances, Rapport final de l’étude répondant au Marché n° 0375C0081 entre l’ADEME (2005) et le Groupement Cemagref – INRA – CReeD – Anjou Recherche – Ecobilan – Orval.

Martens, W. (2003) Suitability of Different Test Organisms as Parameters to Evaluate the Hygiene Effectiveness of Composting and Digestion, ECN Workshop Maastricht, October 2003.

Mihelič, R., Sušin, J., Jagodic, A. and Leskošek, M. (2006) Slovene Guidelines for Expert Based Fertilization in a Light of Cross Compliance Rules, Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 87, 109-119.

Nikitas, C., Pocock, R., Toleman, I. and Gilbert, E. J. (2006) The State of Composting and Biological Waste Treatment in the UK 2005/06, Report produced on behalf of the Composting Association and WRAP.

Riedel, H. and Marb, C. (2008). Heavy Metals and Organic Contaminants in Bavarian Composts – an Overview. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

Schwarz-Linek, J., Gartland, J., Irvine, R., Gartland, K. and Collier, P. (2007). Fate of Genetically Modified Micro-Organisms during Thermophilic Composting. University of Abertay, Dundee.

Stäb, J., Kuch, B., Rupp, S., Fischer, K., Kranert, M. and Metzger, J. W. (2008). Determination of Organic Contaminants in Compost and Digestates in Baden-Württemberg, South-West Germany. Compost and Digestate: Sustainability, Benefits, Impacts for the Environment and for Plant Production, Proceedings of the International Congress CODIS February 27-29, 2008.

Timmermann, F., Kluge, R. and Bouldan, R. (2008). Sustainable Use of Compost in Agriculture - Beneficial Crop Cultivation Effects and Potential Risks, Research Results of a Long Term Study in Germany, Final Report. This report is supplemented by A. Schreiber (2003). Economical and Ecological Evaluation of the Use of Compost in Agriculture.


A-1

A.1.0 Questionnaire/Pro-forma The project covers all source segregated materials (NOT MBT/residual waste)

The project is looking at products from both composting and digestion processes

Although mainly interested in how Category 3 material is dealt with, there is also interest in any types of Category 2 material included in standards.

Manures are of interest only to the extent that they are composted / digested with the products used off site. In principle, such a differentiation will be difficult.

Please note that we have tried to pre-populate the questionnaire where possible, with current knowledge given in blue. Please can you confirm that this previously-accumulated information is correct?

A.1.1 Compost Production 1) Which Feedstocks are used in which quantities in compost and anaerobic digestion

facilities? Does this include the positive list of licensing procedures and compost/biowaste regulations or only the feedstocks used in reality?

A) Note – this needs to link to ABPR Categories

B) Also, only source segregated materials

2) How much compost and 'digestion outputs' are produced in the country?

3) What proportion of total compost production is used in agriculture?

4) Of the quantity used in agriculture, what proportion (or estimated proportion) is used on which crops?

A.1.2 Current Standards / Regulations Please provide a summary of the current standards / regulations applicable in the country for both compost and anaerobic digestion.

In particular please identify standards for:

feedstocks (lists included within standards/definitions);

PTEs (absolute levels, differentiation between ‘classes’);

Organic contaminants

Physical impurities; and

hygienisation (temperature, time, indicator organisms).

If a version (or summary) is available in English please identify this and provide a copy or links to a copy.

8/12/08

A-2

A.1.2.1 Link To Risk Assessment

For each of the above, and for use of material agriculture (particularly rules relating to use in agriculture):

1) What was the basis for the setting of the standard / rules; (EX ANTE RISK ASSESSMENT)

A) Please give details of how the standards were related to risk assessment, if at all.

B) Please identify the relevant publications which sought to assess the risks involved.

2) To what extent have trials and tests been used to justify standards EX POST?

A.1.3 Use in Agriculture 1) Are there restrictions on the types of land to which outputs can be applied (depending

upon quality of compost)?

2) How are the applications of nutrients regulated?

3) Is any account taken of the availability of nitrogen and phosphorus in setting application limits?

4) Are there any other restrictions that relate to the application rates of compost? (e.g. related to heavy metal limits)

5) Are there any specific exclusions relating to the types of crops to which specific outputs (or outputs from specific feedstocks) can be applied? (is there a matrix for these?)

6) Have any problems arisen (real or perceived) with the use of compost / digestate in agriculture? (other than anything associated with the coming into the force of the ABPR)

7) Have there been any public (‘householder’) perception issues with the use of compost/ digestates on agricultural land?

If so:

1. how significant have these been?

2. how and why did the concerns arise?

3. how have the concerns been addressed?

A.1.4 Development of the Regulations We aim to better understand the current approach in each MS by reviewing the ways in which standards and requirements in relation to composting of animal waste have changed over time and the significance of concerns by vets and agricultural officials at each stage.

A key aim of the project is to identify where these changes were the result of risk assessments. Where these are known please identify.

1) Please summarise any changes that took place after the ABPR to composting and anaerobic digestion standards/regulations.

In particular please identify any changes which occurred in the standards / regulations for:

Collection schemes;

feedstocks (lists included within standards/definitions);

hygienisation (temperature, time, indicator organisms);


A-3

licensing (separation of premises from livestock)

standards for application of materials (incl waiting period)

labelling.

2) Have concerns about ABPR been raised by farmers? (to be set in context of official national regulations and restrictions established by authority / restrictions addressed by authority)

If so:

1. how significant have these been?

2. how and why did the concerns arise?

3. how have the concerns been addressed?

A.1.4.1 Narrative

It would be useful to have some description here of the discussions which may or may not have taken place around the ABPR between, for example, Vets/ agricultural officials and waste officials / composters.

A.1.5 Following the Amendment 208/2006 1) Are any risk assessments being undertaken to ensure compliance of standards with the

process validation tests of the ABPR following the amendments made through Regulation 208/2006?

2) Have any further changes to the composting or anaerobic digestion standards taken place, or are any such changes being considered, following the amendments to the ABPR through Regulation 208/2006?

Please provide any relevant documentation, especially in relation to risk assessments already undertaken, or information about any which are in progress or about to be undertaken.

8/12/08

A-4

A.2.0 Waste Materials Allowed for the Production of Compost in EU Member States, Independent of Waste or Non-waste Regime


A-5

Table 16: General Overview of how Member States Establish Specific Requirements for Input Materials in Composting

Statutory/ Voluntary [S] / [V]

Main principles how materials for composting are ruled [Types of wastes etc] Input Materials specifically excluded?

AT S • Statutory End of Waste – Compost Ordinance; Waste management plan 2006; • 5 categories of waste materials, detailed specification and denomination with waste codes independent from the

European Waste Catalogue. These categories differentiate between pure plant tissue waste and waste which can contain animal by-products according to the EU ABP Regulation

o high quality materials of plant tissue origin only (including source-separated garden and park waste) o high quality materials including parts of animal origin (Cat. 3 ABP, manure, paunch waste); including source

separated organic house hold and catering waste o Materials with eventual need of specific quality controls due to potential contamination, again differentiated for

plant tissue materials and ABP o Mineral additives such as stone dust, wood ash, dredged soil, lime stone; limited to 10 respectively 15 %

(dredged soil)

NO

BE Flanders

S

VLAREA (Flemish Regulation on Waste Prevention and Management) Source separated biowaste and green waste. Some additional types of organic waste according to case by case licensing. No generally applicable written standards as to the latter.

Sewage Sludge Mixed MSW

Walloonia n.d.84 Source separated biowaste and green waste. NO

Brussels n.d. Source separated biowaste and green waste. NO

CZ [S] draft Biowaste Ordinance (2008)

There are no materials in- or excluded by legislation. The fertiliser law included some thresholds for input materials in general. In the new draft Biowaste Ordinance the waste materials are ruled. There are specific heavy metal content limits for sewage sludge. Each catalogue number has certain requirements. Ministry of Environment intends to prepare legislation with obligation for separate collection. At the moment there are only large voluntary projects e.g. in Prague.

NO

84 n.d. … no data available

8/12/08

A-6



DE S Ordinance on Biowaste (BioAbfV): Here only waste materials are ruled, which may be used for the production of compost.

Sewage Sludge85 Mixed MSW

S Fertiliser Ordinance (DüMV) includes an extensive positive list of source materials which goes far beyond the positive list of the Biowaste Ordinance. Compost can be used as organic soil improver or organic fertiliser, if the used source materials comply with this ordinance. Any material which is listed in the Fertiliser Ordinance and has achieved the waste status but is not found in the Biowaste Ordinance cannot be used for the production of compost.

NO

V RAL GZ 251: Positive list of the quality assurance scheme based on RAL GZ 251 includes all materials as listed in the Biowaste Ordinance and the Fertiliser Ordinance.

NO

DK S Waste separated at source, including composted waste, from private households, institutions and private enterprises together with sewage sludge. Garden waste can be treated and used without any restrictions. In principle raw materials should meet the requirements of the stat. order on heavy metals and organic compounds before processing. For compost the authority agrees to analyse also the final product.

NO

ES S Statutory legislation Real Decree 824/2005 on Fertiliser Products . For the elaboration of Fertiliser Products of Group 2 [Organic Fertiliser], 3 [Organic-mineral Fertiliser] and 6 [Organic Amendment] of Annex I, only allowed is the use of raw materials from organic (animal or vegetal) source, included clearly in the list of biodegradable organic waste of Annex IV (taken in part of European waste list (Decision 2001/118/CE 16 January 2001, transposed by Spanish Order MAM/304/2002, 8 February.86

NO

FI – NO common regulation for input materials; indicated materials in the positive list below refer to licensing practice in Finland; General strategy: source separation of organic household waste, garden and park waste, catering waste and residues from food production and processing.

Mixed MSW

85 Compost can be produced from sewage sludge, but this is regulated in the German Sewage Sludge Ordinance and is excluded from the Biowaste and Fertiliser Ordinances.

86 Spain: In addition to this, Article 17 [Use of wastes] sets that the use as an ingredient of any material included in the European List of Wastes, as mentioned in Commission Decision 2001/118/CE, 16 January 2001, which modifies the Decision 2000/532/CE by which refers to the list of wastes, will be submitted to the competent authority of the region where the waste is produced and, if necessary, where the waste is recovered.


A-7



FR

[S] NF U44-051: Compost Standard: No definite positive list; all types of compostable waste including mixed municipal waste is allowed with the exception of sewage sludge; pre-requisite for compost use and marketing as product [“STATUTORY PRODUCT STANDARD”]

Sewage sludge

[S] NF U44-095: Sewage sludge/Biosolids compost = product; pre-requisite for compost use and marketing as product [“STATUTORY PRODUCT STANDARD”]

---

GR --- Only mixed waste composting ; No regulation; nearly no composting plants; permits for input materials decided by the Prefecture authority, on the basis of the Environmental Impact Assessment of the facility

NO

HU S Statutory rule Nr. 23/2003. (XII. 29.) about the treatment of biowaste and technical requirements of composting with a positive list. The list contains 6 main categories of waste materials and detailed specification and denomination and waste codes ruled by the Hungarian Statutory Rule Nr. 16/2001. (VII.18.) about the list of the wastes based on the European Waste Catalogue codes (EWC).

Mixed MSW Sewage sludge

8/12/08

A-8



IE S Irish EPA have lists on acceptable feedstocks in EPA Waste Licenses, this is done on a case by case basis. ABP allowed Feedstocks: SI 253 of 2008 (Replaces SI 615 of 2006)– The following materials can be used as feedstock in a composting/anaerobic digestion facility: •Catering waste as defined in Article 6 1 (l), EU Regulation 1774/2002 •Former foodstuffs as defined in Article 6 1 (f), EU Regulation 1774/2002, including raw materials •Manure and digestive tract content •Raw milk from animals not showing signs of any communicable disease as defined in Article 6 1 (g), EU Regulation 1774/2002 •Fresh by-products from fish as defined in Article 6 1 (i), EU Regulation 1774/2002 •Fish or other sea animals caught in the open sea for the purpose of fishmeal production as defined in Article 6 1 (h), EU Regulation 1774/2002 •Shells, hatchery by-products and cracked egg products from animals not showing signs of any communicable disease, as defined in Article 6 1 (j), EU Regulation 1774/2002 •Feathers Mixed MSW: Not for quality compost. But there are dedicated facilities processing mixed waste which is used in landfills and it is approved by EPA on a case by case basis.

Slaughterhouse waste

IT S Fertiliser Law (L. 748/84, no Decree 217/06) A positive list is given; it basically includes source separated food waste, garden waste from private and public gardens, slurries and manure from husbandry, sewage sludge, agro-industrial by-products, wood and textile (untreated) residues from food processing etc. All indicated wastes in the positive list below refer to EWC codes explicitly reported in a Technical Regulation on simplified authorisation Procedures for waste recovery. This is independent from the question if compost might be considered as a product but superintend composting plants licensing. Other biodegradable types of waste must be approved on a case-by-case basis.

Mixed MSW

LT --- Environmental Requirements for Composting of biowaste, approved by the Ministry of the Environment on 25 January 2007, No. D1-57 allows the use of biowaste, green waste, agricultural and forestry waste and mixed waste to be composted. It even allows compost organic waste from industrial source (exception waste is specific in 13 para of the requirement) and products from restaurants, canteens etc. as long as the Animal by-Products Regulation is met.

NO

LU Allowed input materials are defined within the individual plant license. Organic residues from households, gardens and parks together with industrial organic residues

Animal carcasses, slaughterhouse wastes, sewage


A-9


Main principles how materials for composting are ruled [Types of wastes etc] Input Materials specifically excluded? sludge, waste from animal breeding e.g. animal manure; potato peelings from commercial sources

NL S EU waste catalogue; Within the KIWA certificate as well as in the VA Certificate there are no specific rules for input materials. The producer of the compost is responsible for the quality of the process and the end product. Both process and end product are regulated by law. In the Netherlands it is not allowed to accept manure or sludge in a facility to produce compost. The product of this mixture of manure or sludge with compost remains manure or sludge. Vegetables, fruits and garden waste (VFG) from households together industrial organic residues - a small positive list exists

Potato peelings from commercial sources Mixed MSW Animal Manure Sewage sludge

PL S There is no positive list of materials for composting. Laws on waste materials and fertilisers allow the use of sewage sludge and mixed waste for compost and the production of organic fertilisers if the final product meets the heavy metal standards. The use of waste from animal origin must be approved by the Veterinary Institute.

Industrial organic waste excluded for the production of organic fertilisers

SE V Voluntary Quality Assurance System: SPCR87 152: Certification rules for compost from biowaste; SPCR 120: Certification rules for compost from biowaste Source separated material from gardens, households, restaurants, food processing, agriculture and forestry Otherwise the allowed input materials are defined in the individual permits of each composting plant

Sludge

SI S Regulation about the Treatment of Biowaste to Compost (Feb. 2004) It includes an input material list which contains mixed waste and sludge. It allows ABP only after a corresponding treatment required by ABPR 1774 and an evaluation by a Veterinarian

NO

SK V No specific regulation and positive list; but traditionally there exists a basic rule what is licensed case by case. NO

87 SPCR: Swedish National Testing & Research Institute.

8/12/08

A-10



UK V BSI PAS 100 (Standard): No positive list; but requires the biowaste to be source-segregated and that the compost producer only accepts it if the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point assessment finds that an effective Critical Control Point exists for each hazard.

Treated wood Non compostable packaging and plastics

V EA-WRAP Quality Compost Protocol: Appendix B provides a list of acceptable biowaste types for the production of quality composts. Full compliance with the Quality Compost Protocol is the pre-requisite that certified compost can be marketed as a product (the positive list is currently more restrictive than the theoretical range of biowaste types that a BSI PAS 100 compost producer could accept.)

Sewage sludge Treated wood Japanese knotweed88 Non compostable packaging and plastics

88 This exclusion is in the Composting Association’s Compost Certification Scheme guidance documents. Under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1982, it is illegal to permit the spread of Japanese Knotweed. Pieces of rhizome as small as 0.7 grammes can regrow! Likely unacceptable risk that part of the Japanese Knotweed rhizome may be inadequately decomposed by the end of composting, and thus become established in any locations where the compost is spread.


A-11

Table 17: Detailed List of Waste Materials Allowed for the Production of Compost in EU Member States, Independent of Waste or Non-Waste Regime

Countries in […] indicate that the use of this waste as input material for composting is connected with certain restrictions for marketing and use or that specific quality requirements must be met. See also footnotes. n.s. ... not specified Type of waste material Further specifications EWC Code Corresponding EWC waste

type Input materials accepted by MS

1 Waste for biological treatment from exclusively vegetable origin (NO Animal By Products or meat)

1.1 Organic vegetable waste from garden & parks and other greens 1.1.01 Mixtures from organic

wastes according to 1.1 corresponds to VFG = vegetable, fruit & garden waste; source separated

n.s. n.s. AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, FR, HU, IE, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.1.02 Grass cuttings, hay, leaves,

Only slightly contaminated cuttings (not along highly frequented streets and highways

20 02 01 Compostable waste AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.03 Leaves, Only slightly contaminated (not along highly frequented streets and highways

20 02 01 Compostable waste AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.04 Vegetable waste, flower waste, windfalls

Also cut flowers from florist markets and households

20 02 01 02 01 03

Compostable waste Waste from vegetable tissue

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, LV, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.05 Bark Only bark not treated with lindane

03 01

0189 03 03 01

Bark and cork waste Waste from wood preparation and the production of cellulose, paper and cardboard

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT,LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.06 Wood , not specified Only untreated wood; 03 01 05 Saw dust, wood shavings, cuttings, wood, chipboard, veneer with the exception of those which belongs to 03 01 04

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES,

FI, FR, HU, IE, [IT]90, LT, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.07 Wood, tree and bush cuttings

Complete or shreddered 20 01 38 20 02 01

Wood with the exception of those which belong to 20 01 37 Biodegradable waste


FI, FR, HU, IE, [IT] 91, LT,

LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.08 Wood, from the processing of untreated wood

Only untreated wood 03 01 05 Saw dust, wood shavings, cuttings, wood, chipboard, veneer with the exception of those which belong to 03 01 04


FI, FR, HU, IE, [IT]91, LT,

LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.1.09 Cemetery waste – source separated

20 02 01 Biodegradable waste AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL,

PL, SE, SK, UK

89 Waste from wood processing and the production of plates and furniture.

90 To be specifically approved for each plant.


8/12/08

A-12

1.2 Vegetable waste, from the preparation and consumption of food, luxury food & beverages 1.2.01 Cereals, fruit &

vegetables 20 02 01

02 01 03 Compostable waste Waste from vegetable tissue

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.2.02 Tea leaves, coffee grounds

20 02 01 02 01 03



1.2.03 Dough, yeast 20 02 01 02 01 03



1.2.04 Residues from spices and herbs

20 02 01 02 01 03



1.2.05 Wooden oversize fraction from screening compost for reuse in composting

n.s. n.s. AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES92, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.2.06 Former foodstuff Of vegetable origin only 02 01 03 02 03

0493

Waste from vegetable tissue Materials not suitable for consumption or processing

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.2.07 Vegetable catering waste and used cooking oil

Of vegetable origin only (plant tissue) source separated from central as well as household kitchens as well as catering services

02 01 03 02 03

0494

Waste from vegetable tissue Materials not suitable for consumption or processing

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.3 Organic residues from commercial, agricultural and industrial production, processing and marketing of agricultural and forestry products – purely of vegetable origin

1.3.01 Harvest residues, hay and silage

02 01

0395

Plant-tissue waste AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.3.02 Bark 02 01

0395

Plant-tissue waste AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LU, NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.3.03 Grain/Cereal dust 02 01

0395


1.3.04 Straw 02 01

0395


1.3.05 Vines 02 03 04 Materials not suitable for consumption or processing


1.3.06 Tobacco waste 02 03 04 Materials not suitable for consumption or processing


1.3.07 Beet chips, tails 02 01

0395 02 03 04

Plant-tissue waste Materials not suitable for consumption or processing


1.3.08 Residues from canned and deep freeze food processing

02 03 04 Materials not suitable for consumption or processing


92 Not considered because it does not appear in European waste list.

93 Waste from the preparation and processing of fruit, vegetables, grain, cooking oil, cacao, coffee, tea and tobacco, from canned food production, yeast production and preparation of molasses.

94 Waste from the preparation and processing of fruit, vegetables, grain, cooking oil, cacao, coffee, tea and tobacco, from canned food production, yeast production and preparation of molasses.

95 02 01: Waste form agriculture, horticulture, fish farming, forestry, hunting and fishing.


A-13

1.3.09 Residues from fruit juice and jam production



1.3.11 Residues from starch production



1.3.12 Vinasse, molasse residues



1.3.13 Feed and feed residues not fit for use

Of vegetable origin only 02 01

0395


1.3.14 Residues of tea and coffee production



1.3.15 Marc, seeds, shells, grist, press-cake

e.g. from oil mills, spent barley, draff of hop; marc of medicinal plants, copra, only materials which have not been treated with organic extraction agents

02 03 01 Sludge from washing, cleaning, peeling, centrifuging and segregation processes

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU,

NL, PL, SE, UK96

1.3.16 Crushed grain or process residues


AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT,

LU, NL, PL, SE, UK96

1.3.17 Fruit, cereal and potato draff

From breweries and distilleries


AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL,

PL, SE, SK, UK96

1.3.18 Filtration ditomite n.s. n.s. AT, PL 1.3.19 Uncontaminated sludge

or residues of press filters from separately collected process water of the food, beverage, tobacco and animal feed industry

From vegetable, fruit and plant tissue processing only

Sludge from washing, cleaning, peeling, centrifuging and segregation processes

AT, PL, UK96

1.3.20 Eventually slightly polluted sludge from the food and fodder industry exclusively of vegetable origin

02 03 01 02 03 05

Sludge from washing, cleaning, peeling, centrifuging and segregation processes Sludge from company owned waste treatment

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, HU, IE, IT, NL, PL, [SE],

UK96

1.3.21 Eventually slightly polluted pressfilter, extraction and oil seed residues from the food and fodder industry exclusively of vegetable origin


AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FR, HU, IE, IT, NL, PL,

[SE], UK106

1.3.22 02 07 01 Wastes from washing, cleaning and mechanical reduction of raw materials

CZ, ES, PL, UK,

1.3.23 02 07 02 Wastes from spirits distillation

CZ, ES, PL, UK

1.3.24 02 07 04 Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

CZ, ES, PL, UK

1.3.25

Wastes from the production of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages (except coffee, tea and cocoa’

02 07 99 Wastes not otherwise specified

UK

96 Allowed in PAS 100 (BSI, 2005) but not currently by Quality Compost Protocol (Environment Agency, 2007).

8/12/08

A-14

1.3.26 Spoilt seeds 02 01 03 Plant-tissue waste AT, BE97, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE?, IT,

LU, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.3.27 Wood, tree and bush cuttings

Complete or shreddered 20 01 38 20 02 01

Wood with the exception of those which belong to 20 01 37 Biodegradable waste

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, [IT] 98, LU,

NL, SE, SK, UK

1.3.28 Wood, from the processing of untreated wood

Only untreated wood 03 01 05 Saw dust, wood shavings, cuttings, wood, chipboard, veneer with the exception of those which belong to 03 01 04


FI, FR, HU, IE, [IT]91, LU,

NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.3.29 Wood – sawdust Only untreated wood 03 01 05 Saw dust, wood shavings, cuttings, wood, chipboard, veneer with the exception of those which belong to 03 01 04


FI, FR, HU, IE, [IT]91, LU,

NL, PL, SE, SK, UK

1.4 Other Organic residues – purely of vegetable origin 1.4.01 Sub-aqua plants; sea

weed 02 01 03 Plant-tissue waste AT, BE97, BG, CZ, DE,

ES, FI, FR, HU, IE?, IT, LT, LU, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.4.02 Micelles from antibiotics production

16 03 06 Organic waste with the exception of those listed under 16 03 05

AT, BE99, CZ, DE, NL, PL, SE,

1.4.03 Biodegradable packaging and bioplastics

07 02 13, 15 01 02, 15 01 05

waste plastic plastic packaging composite packaging

AT100, BG, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU,

NL, PL, SE, UK101

1.4.04 15 01 01 15 01 03

paper and cardboard packaging wooden packaging

AT102, CZ, UK103

1.4.05

Wastes from packaging; absorbents, filter materials, wiping cloths and protective clothing’ 15 01 09 textile packaging AT, UK104

97 Approved on case by case basis.


99 In accordance with the regulation on GMOs (genetically modified organisms).

100 Non bio-based source materials max. 5%; conventional plastic polymers are excluded.

101 Compostable packaging:

Allowed only if independently certified in compliance with one or more of the following:

BS EN 13432 Packaging - requirements for packaging recoverable through composting and biodegradation;

EN 13432 or EN 14995 in national standard form in any other EU Member State with independent compliance verification by a nationally recognised competent authority or certification body;

German standard DIN V54900 Testing of the compostability of plastics;

American standard ASTM D6400 Standard specifications for compostable plastics;

Any variation upon the standards referred to above for ‚home compostable‘ packaging agreed between the regulator, WRAP, the Composting Association, the organization is responsible for standards and the certification bodies associated with them.

102 Only paper which has been in contact with food and foodstuff (e.g. food packaging).

103 Not allowed if any non-biodegradable coating or preserving substance is present.

104 Allowed only if entirely natural fibres.


A-15

1.4.06 20 01 01 Paper and cardboard AT102, CZ, UK103

1.4.07

Municipal Wastes (household waste and similar commercial, industrial and institutional waste) including separately collected fractions’

20 01 99 Other fractions not otherwise specified

UK

1.4.08 Cooking oil and fats, grease trap residues of vegetable origin

02 03 04 20 01 25

Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing Edible oil and fat

AT, [BE]105, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, NL, PL,

SE, UK106

1.4.09 Silage leachate water 02 01 99 Waste not further specified AT, BE, FR, [IT]90, NL, PL, SE,

1.4.10 Waste from forestry 02 01 07 Waste from forestry AT, CZ, LU, PL, UK 1.4.11 Fibre rejects Waste from pulp, paper and

cardboard production and processing

03 03 10 Fibre rejects ES, CZ, PL, UK,

1.4.12 Waste bark and wood Waste from pulp, paper and cardboard production and processing

03 03 01 Waste bark and wood ES, CZ, PL, UK

1.4.13 Organic matter from natural products

Wastes from the textile industry

04 02 10 Organic matter from natural products

CZ, ES, UK

1.4.14 Wood Wastes from construction and demolition wastes

17 02 01 Wood CZ, UK107

1.4.15 Off-specification compost

Only if the compost is derived from input types allowed by this Quality Protocol. This category includes oversize material resulting from screening such compost.

19 05 03 Off-specification compost CZ, UK

1.4.16 liquor/leachate from a composting process

From vegetable waste treatment only

19 05 99 liquor/leachate from a composting process

CZ, PL, UK

1.5 Digestion residues from anaerobic digestion of waste materials – pure vegetable origin 1.5.01 Digestion residues from

the anaerobic treatment of the waste classes 1.1 and 1.2

19 06 06 Digestion residues/-sludge from the anaerobic treatment of animal and vegetable waste

AT, BE, BG, CZ, DE, ES108, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, NL, PL, SE, UK

1.5.02 Liquor from anaerobic treatment of municipal waste

19 06 03 Liquor from anaerobic treatment of municipal waste

CZ, ES, UK

1.5.03 Liquor from anaerobic treatment of vegetable waste

19 06 05 Liquor from anaerobic treatment of animal and vegetable waste

CZ, ES, PL, UK

1.5.04 Sludge from cooking fat and oil production, solely vegetable origin

Also centrifugal sludge

02 03 04 Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing (?)

AT, CZ, PL, ES, UK

1.5.05 Glycerine phase E.g. from rape seed and waste cooking oil esterification (rape seed oil methylester - RME, waste cooking fat methylester )

n.s. n.s. AT

105 Separately collected; in practice not destined for composting.

106 If no chemical agents added and no toxin residues.

107 Not allowed if any non-biodegradable coating or preserving substance is present.

108 Except for constraints reflected in 1774/2002 regulation.

8/12/08

A-16

1.5.06 Distillation residues from production of rape seed oil methyl ester


AT, CZ, LV, PL, UK

2 Waste for biological treatment with parts of animal origin 2.1 Animal waste, especially waste from the preparation of foodstuffs 2.1.01 Kitchen and food waste

from private households with animal residues

Catering waste from source separated organic household waste

20 01 08 Biologically degradable catering waste (To be utilised only if compatible with the provisions of the Animal By-products regulation)

AT, BE109, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU,

NL, PL110, SE, UK111

2.1.02 Kitchen and food waste from central kitchens and catering services with animal residues

20 01 08 Biologically degradable catering waste (To be utilised only if compatible with the provisions of the Animal By-products regulation)

AT, BE109, CZ, DE, ES, FI, FR, HU, IE, IT, LT, LU,

NL, PL110, SE, UK111

2.1.03 Former foodstuffs of animal origin

020202 020304

Animal tissue waste Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

AT, BE109, DE, ES(?),

FI, FR, HU, IE, IT112,

LU, LV, PL110, SE,

UK113

2.1.04 Eggshells 020202 020304

Animal tissue waste Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

AT, BE109, DE, ES, FI,

FR, HU, IT112, LU,

PL110, SE, UK113

2.2 Organic residues from commercial, agricultural and industrial production, processing and marketing of agricultural and forestry products – with parts of animal origin

2.2.01 Sludge from the food and fodder industry with parts of animal origin


AT, BE109, BG, CZ112,

DE, ES108, FR, HU, IT112, NL, PL110, SE, UK

2.2.02 Press-filter, extraction and oil seed residues from the food and fodder industry with parts of animal origin


AT, BE109, CZ112, DE, ES108, FR, HU, IT112, NL, SE, UK

2.2.03 Spoilt feeding stuff of animal origin from fodder producing industry


AT, BE109, BG, CZ112, DE, ES(?), FR, HU, IT112, NL, PL110, SE, UK

2.2.04 Residues from horn, hoof, hair, wool, feathers

02 02 02 Animal tissue waste AT, BE109, DE, ES112,

FR, HU, IT112, NL,

PL110, SE, UK

109 Only with individual approval.

110 Organic fertilisers produced using animal wastes by composting or more preferentially biogas method, can get approval but they have to be assessed by veterinary institute.

111 Only if composted in accordance with national rules at a facility registered by the Animal Health vets.

112 If approved by veterinary service, according to EU regulation on ABP 1774/2002.

113 Only if composted in accordance with EU regulation on ABP 1774/2002 at a facility registered by the Animal Health vets.


A-17

2.2.05 Sludge and press-filter residues from slaughter houses and fattening industries


FR, HU, IT112, PL110,

SE, UK96

2.2.06 Paunch waste Belongs to ABPR Cat. 2 Material


FR, IE, IT112, NL,

PL110, SE, UK

2.2.07 Solid and liquid manure Belongs to ABPR Cat. 2 Material

02 01 06 Animal faeces, urine and manure

AT, BE109, BG, CZ112, DE, ES(?), FI, FR, HU, IE,

IT112, LU, LV, PL110,

SE, UK114

2.2.08 Gelatine waste 02 02 03 02 02 09

Material unsuitable for consumption or processing Waste not otherwise specified

AT, BE109, BG, CZ112,

DE, ES112, FR, IT112,

PL110, SE, UK

2.2.09 Wastes from aerobic treatment of solid wastes’

Only allowed if compost was derived from input materials specified in this list

19 05 03 Off-specification compost CZ112, UK114

2.2.10 Wastes from aerobic treatment of solid wastes’

liquor/leachate from compost processing


UK115

2.3 Digestion residues from anaerobic treatment of waste materials which may contain parts of animal origin

2.3.01 Digestion residue of anaerobic digestion of materials of waste Category 2 rendered fat and cooking oil of animal origin


AT, BE109, BG, CZ112,

DE, ES112, FI, FR, HU, IT112, PL110, SE, UK

2.3.02 Digestion residue of anaerobic digestion of dairy residues

e.g. whey, cheese residues and dairy sludge


AT, BE109, BG, CZ112,

DE, ES112, FI, FR, HU, IE, PL110, SE, UK

2.3.03 Digestion residue of anaerobic digestion of raw milk

Material acc. To Art. 6 (1g) of Regulation 1774/2002/EC


AT, BE109, BG, CZ112,

DE, ES112, FI, FR, HU, IE, PL110, SE, UK

2.3.04 Digestion residue of anaerobic digestion of slaughter house waste and by-products


AT, BE109, CZ112, DE, ES112, FR, HU, PL110, SE, UK

2.3.05 Digestion residue of anaerobic digestion of skins, hides and furs


AT, BE109, CZ112, DE, ES112, HU, PL110, SE, UK

2.3.06 Wastes from anaerobic treatment of wastes

Only allowed if compost was derived from input materials specified in this list

19 06 03 Liquor from anaerobic treatment of municipal waste

ES112, UK

114 Slurry and used animal bedding of the following types are allowed; straw, shredded paper; paper pulp; sawdust; wood shavings and chipped wood.

115 Liquor/leachate from a process operated according to PAS 100 requirements (includes restrictions in input material types and sources).

8/12/08

A-18

2.3.07 Wastes from anaerobic treatment of wastes

19 06 05 Liquor from anaerobic treatment of animal and vegetable waste

CZ112, ES112, UK

2.3.08 Wastes from the preparation and processing of meat, fish and other foods of animal origin

02 02 02 Animal tissue waste ES112, PL110, UK116


02 02 03 Material unsuitable for consumption or processing

CZ112, ES112, PL110,

UK117



UK118

2.3.11 Wastes from the dairy products industry

02 05 01 Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

CZ112, ES112, PL110,

UK119

2.3.12 Wastes from the baking and confectionery industry

02 06 01 Materials unsuitable for consumption or processing

CZ112, UK120

3 Further waste for biological treatment with [these wastes might need additional approval of origin and involved processes]

3.01 Municipal sewage sludge

Sludge which is used for compost production must be acknowledged for the direct use in agriculture

19 08 05 Sludge from treatment of urban waste water

[AT], BG, CZ, ES108, FI,

FR, HU, IE, IT121, LT,

LU122, LV, SK, PL,

[SE]123, [UK]124

3.02 Wastes from the leather and fur industry’

04 01 01 Fleshings and lime split wastes [leather shavings]

CZ, ES, UK

3.03 Municipal solid waste – not source separated

[AT]125, BG, ES, FR, HU,

[IE]126, LT, PL, [SE]123,

116 EWC code 02 02 02 may include animal blood.

117 May include gut contents, shells and shell-fish wastes.

118 Allowed only if animal manure, slurry or bedding of types which are listed in the UK Compost Quality Protocol.

119 May include raw milk.

120 May consist of, or include former foodstuffs [Category 3 animal by-products].

121 Sewage sludge is allowed if it complies with Italian enforcement of the European Directive (EC) n° 278/86.

122 Only sewage sludge not mixed with kitchen waste.

123 Not allowed within the QAS Certification scheme of SPRC 152 (compost) and SPCE 120 (digestate); Otherwise this might be used.

124 BSI PAS 100, but only if HACCP assessment indicates acceptable risk and compost sample test results show sufficient quality Not allowed under Compost Quality Protocol.

125 Compost from mixed MSW is restricted to the use in reclamation of landfill sites and may only be delivered directly to the landfill.

126 Not for quality compost. But there are dedicated facilities which process mixed waste which is used in landfills.


A-19

4 Additives for composting [added in minor quantities (up to 10 – 15 % at maximum) in order to improve the composting process, humification and maturation]

4.01 Rock dust 01 03 08 01 04 09

Dusty and powdery waste except those belonging to 01 03 07 Waste from sand and clay

AT127, HU, NL, PL110, SE

4.02 Lime stone dust 02 04 02

Calcium carbonate sludge not according to specification

AT127, BG, DE, FI, FR,

HU, LV, NL, SK, PL110, SE,

4.03 Bentonite --- --- AT127, DE, HU, PL110, SE?,

4.04 Ash from combustion of plant tissue (e.g. wood, straw)

10 01 01 Bottom ash, slag and boiler dust (excluding boiler dust mentioned in 10 01 04)

AT128, BG, DE, FI, HU, PL110, SE?,

4.05 Excavated soil Not contaminated 17 05 04 Soil and stones other than those mentioned in 17 05 03

AT127 128, HU, SK PL110, SE?, UK129

4.06 Washing soil from sugar beet and potato processing

02 04 01 Soil from cleaning and washing beet

AT127 128, CZ, DE,

PL110, UK130

127 Sum of all mineral additives for the process optimisation max 10% (m/m); dredged soil: max 15% (m/m)

128 Limit values for heavy metals must be respected

129 Allowed only if Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) assessment determines that adequate pollutant risk control is feasible. Would become ineligible for PAS100, as non-biodegradable.

130 Would become ineligible for PAS100.

8/12/08

A-20

A.3.0 Catering Waste as a Special Case The case of catering waste has always been a special one where the ABPR is concerned. From the outset, the ABPR effectively allowed Member States to set their own rules regarding catering waste which was not from means of transport operating internationally. This exemption from the application of Annex VI comes through Article 6(2)(g), which states that such catering waste shall be:

transformed in a biogas plant or composted in accordance with rules laid down under the procedure referred to in Article 33(2) or, pending the adoption of such rules, in accordance with national law;

Article 33(2) refers to the Regulatory Procedures under the ABPR.

By virtue of Article 6(2)(g), the processing requirements set out under Annex VI thus do not apply to plants treating catering waste which was not from means of transport operating internationally. Although Article 15 discusses the approval of biogas plants and composting plants, and although this refers to the processing requirements of Annex VI, the approval process does not apply to catering waste, because catering waste does not have to be treated at a plant approved under Article 15. Article 7(1) also exempts Category 3 catering waste from the collection, transport and identification requirements of Annex II, stating:

Animal by-products and processed products, with the exception of Category 3 catering waste shall be collected, transported and identified in accordance with Annex II.

Instead, under Article 7(4), and in line with the Waste Framework Directive:

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that Category 3 catering waste is collected, transported and disposed of without endangering human health and without harming the environment.

It seems clear, therefore, that unless it originates from means of transport operating internationally, catering waste, defined in the ABPR as all food waste originating in both commercial and household kitchens/facilities, remains generally exempted from the requirements of Annexes II and VI by virtue of Article 6(2)(g) and Article 7(1). For plants which treat only such materials, the competent authority may authorise specific requirements other than those laid down in Annex VI of the ABPR.

Annex VI has, however, always been apt to confuse. Notwithstanding the fact that Articles in the ABPR exempt catering waste that is not from means of transport operating internationally from the requirements of Annex VI, Annex VI nonetheless comments on the matter, stating:

However, pending the adoption of rules in accordance with Article 6(2)(g), the competent authority may, when catering waste is the only animal by-product used as raw material in a biogas or composting plant, authorise the use of processing standards other than those laid down in paragraphs 12 and 13 provided that they guarantee an equivalent effect regarding the reduction of pathogens [our emphasis].

This is especially confusing since the amending Regulation 208/2006 effectively inserted process validation tests just before the above paragraph, which had previously followed paragraphs discussing temperature, time and particle size. Even if this clause of Annex VI was thought to be relevant, therefore, it is not clear what the term ‘equivalent effect’ is


A-21

intended to mean. In particular, the ABPR does not make clear how an “equivalent effect” should be established, or what it is to which ‘equivalence’ is to be demonstrated. Although a reading of the amended ABPR might lead one to assume that ‘equivalent effect’ would require process standards to deliver ‘equivalent reduction in pathogens’ to that set out in Annex VI Ch II 13a (d), prior to the amendment, the ‘equivalent reduction in pathogens’ appeared to refer to the reduction achieved by ensuring material is shredded to 12 mm and treated at 70°C for no less than 1 hour.

A summary of the hygienisation requirements for composting and AD plants according to the type of ABP is presented in Table 18. For catering waste only, the hygienisation process standard has been split according to whether one interprets the ABPR to imply that Annex VI does or does not apply to this type of ABP.

Table 18: Summary of the ABPR Hygienisation Requirements According to Feedstock Processed at the Plant

ABP Material Hygienisation Process Standard

Category 2 material only (manure, digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrum).

Either 12 mm, 70°C for 1 h or another process standard, provided that they do not consider that the material presents a risk of spreading disease and that the output (residues/compost) are considered to be unprocessed material.

Category 3 material (including Catering Waste where mixed with other feedstocks)

Either 12 mm, 70°C for 1 h or another process standard, providing it meets process validation points (a) to (f).

Catering Waste only If Annex VI does not apply: Pending the adoption of specific rules, in accordance with national law

If Annex VI does apply: Either 12 mm, 70°C for 1 h or another process standard, providing it meets process validation points (a) to (f) or pending the adoption of specific rules, in accordance with national law as long as these demonstrate ‘an equivalent effect regarding the reduction of pathogens.’

Catering Waste and Category 2 material (manure, digestive tract content separated from the digestive tract, milk and colostrums) only.

As per catering waste only where Annex VI is assumed to apply, provided that the resulting material is considered as if it were from catering waste.

8/12/08

A-22

A.4.0 List of Known Operating AD Plants of Commercial Scale

LOCATION FEEDSTOCK* SYSTEM SCALE tpa DATE

Austria

Amstetten biowaste, catering waste BST 10,000 2005

Antiesenhofen biowaste, catering waste BST 2000 2002

Bergheim-Siggerwiesen biowaste Dranco 20,000 1993

BioKW GmbH - location not specified

manure, fruit and veg, sewage sludge AAT 2003

Böheimkirchen biowaste, agricultural Ing. Bauer GmbH 7,000 1996

Bruck a. d Leitha catering waste, energy crops Eigenbau 20,000 2004

Eferding OIW Entec 7,500 1984

Feldbach biowaste AAT 11,000 1998

Feldkirch manure, fruit and veg AAT 2002

Frastanz OIW Entec 17,000 1985

Graz MSW Dranco 1990

Habersdorf biowaste and catering waste BST 5000 2005

Hagenbrunn catering waste, energy crops Entec 20000 2004

Heiligenkreuz am Wasen catering waste, energy crops Nahtec, Kohler 12000 2002

Herzogdorf biowaste, catering waste BST 10000 2005

Hirsdorf agricultural, biowaste, OIW Entec 1994

Hollabrunn OIW Entec 11,000 1983

Immendorf vegetables, manure, energy crops Fuhrer, Schweitzer 4,000 2003

Kainsdorf biowaste, agricultural, OIW Entec 14,000 1995

Koblach MSW AAT 15,000 1993

Kötschach manure, fruit and veg AAT 2005

Laubegg manure, fruit and veg AAT 2004

Leesternau biowaste Kompogas 8,000 1997

Lustenau biowaste Kompogas 10,000 1996

Markgrafneusiedel biowaste, catering waste Komptech 15,000 2005

Mayerhofen biowaste, agricultural Arge Biogas 2,500 1997

Michaelbeuern catering Waste, manure, energy crops Wolf 3,800 2002

Nuzbach catering Waste, manure, energy crops Schweitzer 6,600 2001

Ottnang biowaste, manure Bioenergetica 5,000 2003

Penzberg slaughterhouse waste, manure AAT, Wolf 20,000 2005

Pettenbach slaughterhouse waste, manure Fuhrer, Schweitzer 5,700 2003


A-23

LOCATION FEEDSTOCK* SYSTEM SCALE tpa DATE

Rankweil catering waste, manure, energy crops

Entec 2,500 2004

Rechnitz biowaste, catering waste BST 15,000 2004

Roppen biowaste Kompogas 10,000 2001

Ruprechtshofen biowaste, catering waste BST 2,000 2002

Salzberg green waste and cow manure (600) Entec 1,600 2002

Salzburg OIW, biosolids AAT 160,000 1999

Siggerwiesen biowaste Dranco 20,000 1993

St Martin slaughterhouse waste, Schweitzer 10,000 2002

St Pankraz catering waste Waltenberger 10,000 2003

St Stefan slaughterhouse waste, manure AAT 13,000 2003

Vienna biowaste Ros Roca 17,000 2008

Wels biowaste BTA-Biotec 15,000 1997

Wels biowaste LINDE 15,000 1996

Westerwesede agricultural, OIW Entec 5,000 1986

Belgium

Århus biowaste, agricultural, OIW C.G. Jensen- rebuilt by Xergi 125,000 1995

(2005)

Blaabjerg agricultural, OIW BWSC/Bioscan 113,000 1996

Blåhøj agricultural, OIW NIRAS 30,000 1997

Bornholm manure, biowaste GasCon - Bioscan 175,000 2004

Brecht biowaste Dranco 20,000 1992

Brecht biowaste Dranco 50,000 2000

Davinde agricultural, OIW Krüger 10,000 1988

Elsinore biowaste BTA-Biotec 20,000 1991

Fangel agricultural, OIW Krüger 53,000 1989

Filskov agricultural, OIW NIRAS 27,000 1995

Gent MSW AAT 182,000 1999

Grindsted biowaste, biosolids Krüger 40,000 1997

Haansdonk manure, agricultural OIW Coltrade b.v. 2007

Hashøj agricultural, OIW Krüger 53,000 1994

Hodsager agricultural, OIW NIRAS 17,500 1993

Holsted manure, OIW Xergi 2002

Ieper biowaste BTA-Biotec 50,000 2003

Kerteminde manure, OIW Xergi 24,500 2005

Lemvig agricultural, OIW BWSC 144,000 1992

8/12/08

A-24

Lintrup agricultural, OIW Krüger/Bioscan 190,000 1990

Lommel OIW Ros Roca 150,000 2007

Mons 35,700 from source separation Valorga 58,700 2001

Nysted biowaste, agricultural, OIW Krüger 100,000 1998

Revninge agricultural, OIW Bioscan 15,300 1989

Ribe agricultural, OIW Krüger 147,000 1990

Sinding biowaste, agricultural, OIW Herning Municipal 45,000 1988

Snertinge agricultural, OIW NIRAS 43,000 1996

Studsgård biowaste, agricultural, OIW Herning Municipal 130,000 1996

Tenneville biowaste Dranco 39,000 planned for 2008

Thorsø agricultural, OIW BWSC 110,000 1994

Vaarst-Fjellerad biowaste, agricultural, OIW NIRAS 55,000 1997

Vegger biowaste, agricultural, OIW Jysk Biogas 19,000 1986

Vester Hjermitslev agricultural, OIW Krüger 17,000 1984

Ypres biowaste and commercial waste BTA 50,000 2003

Estonia

Valjala manure, sludge Ros Roca 40,000 2005

Finland

Ilmajoki biowaste, sludge YIT 55000 2008

Satakierto Ltd (location not specified biowaste Preseco 24000 2006

Vaasa MSW Waasa/Wabio 15,000 1994

France

Amiens MSW Valorga 85,000 1988

Calais biowaste and grease Valorga 28,000 2006

Essonne biowaste, manure Naskeo

Varennes-Jarcy 30,000 source sep household waste Valorga 100,000 2003

Germany

Alpen energy crops Entec 7,400 2008

Alzey-Worms biowaste Kompogas 26,000 1999

Amtzell biowaste Kompogas 18,500 2007

Baden-Baden biowaste BTA 5,000 1993

Baden-Wurttemberg biowaste Schwarting 5,000 2001

Beck biowaste, manure Naskeo

Behringen agricultural, OIW LINDE 23,000 1996

Bottrop biowaste Wabio 6,500 1995

Braunschweig biowaste Kompogas 26,000 1997

Brensbach OIW, manure Hese Biogas 70,000 2005


A-25

Buchen MSW ISKA 165000 2005

Deisslingen biowaste Ros Roca 24000 2005

Dietrichsdorf-Volkenschwand biowaste, OIW BTA 18,000 1995

Ellert biowaste Entec 5,000 1997

Engelskirchen biowaste Valorga 35,000 1998

Erkheim biowaste, OIW BTA 11,500 1997

Finsterwald biowaste, agricultural Schwarting UHDE 90,000 1995

Florsheim-Wicker biowaste Kompogas 45,000 2008

Frankfurt biowaste Kompogas 30,000 1999

Freiburg biowaste Valorga 36,000 1999

Fürstenwalde biowaste, OIW LINDE 85,000 1998

Ganderkesee biowaste ANM 3,000 1995

Genthin biowaste and sludge Gas Con 52,500 1999

Gescher biowaste, sludge Ros Roca 17,500 2005

Gröden-Schraden agricultural, OIW Haase Energietechnic 110,000 1995

Groß Mühlingen biowaste, agricultural, OIW DSD 42,000 1996

Groß Pankow agricultural, OIW Alusteel/NNR 7,700 1994

Hamburg biowaste Hese Biogas 20,000 2006

Heilbronn MSW ISKA 80,000 2005

Heppenheim biowaste, OIW LINDE 33,000 1999

Herten biowaste Hese Biogas 18,000 1998

Himmelkron agricultural, OIW AAT 2,800 1995

Hinske biowaste Hese Biogas 21,000 2008

Hirschfelde OIW AAT 3,600 1997

Hirschfelde biowaste Schwarting 5,000 2003

Hunsruck biowaste Kompogas 10,000 1997

Ilbenstadt biowaste Kompogas 18,500 2007

Kahlenburg MSW Wehrle/Biopercolat 20,000 2001

Karlsruhe biowaste BTA 8,000 1996

Kaufbeuren biowaste, OIW BTA 2,500 1992

Kempten biowaste Kompogas 10,000 1995

Kirchstockach biowaste BTA 25,000 1997

Kogel commercial food waste Entec 40,000 2004

Lemgo biowaste, OIW LINDE 38,000 2000

Leonberg biowaste Dranco 30,000 2004

Luchow potato juice, maize, slurry Farmatic 160,000 post 2002

8/12/08

A-26

Luneburg biowaste Hese Biogas 90,000 2007

Malchin commercial food waste Entec 50,000 2008

Mertingen agricultural waste + 1000 biowaste BTA-Biotec 12,000 2001

Michaelisdonn agricultural, OIW Krüger 35,000 1995

Monaco biowaste BTA-Biotec 20,000 1997

Mulheim biowaste, commercial waste BTA 22,000 2004

München biosolids, OIW Schwarting UHDE 86,400 1987

München/Eitting biowaste Kompogas 26,000 1997

Münster biowaste BTA /Roediger 22,000 1997

Neukirchen agricultural, biowaste AAT 55,000 1998

Nordhausen biowaste Haase 16,000 1999

Oldenburg agricultural, OIW Krüger 20,000 1992

Passau biowaste Kompogas 39,000 2004

Pastitz/Rügen agricultural, OIW Bioplan 100,000 1997

Radeberg biosolids, biowaste OIW LINDE 56,000 1999

Regen biowaste Kompogas 18,500 2007

Regensburg biowaste TBW/Biocomp 13,000 1996

Roding biowaste AAT 7,000 1996

Rostock biowaste Kompogas 40,000 2008

Sagard/ Island Rügen biowaste, agricultural, OIW LINDE 48,000 1996

Schleswig biowaste and residues Schwarting 66,000 2006

Schwabach biowaste BTA/ATU 12,000 1996

Schwanebeck biowaste, agricultural Haase 50,000 1999

SE of Berlin biowaste Schwarting 35,000 2005

Senftenberg energy crops Entec 40,000 2007

Simmern biowaste Kompogas 10,000 1997

Soeder rye and pigs manure Haase Energietechnic 2007

Surwold OIW, manure Hese Biogas 40,000 2002

Volkenschwand biowaste, OIW Ros Roca 75,000 2005

Wadern-Lockweiler biowaste, OIW BTA 20,000 1998

Werlte OIW, manure Hese Biogas 110,000 2002

Wiessenfels biowaste Kompogas 24,000 2003 and 2006

Wiessenfels II biowaste Kompogas 24,000 2007

Wittmund agricultural, OIW Krüger 120,000 1996

Zobes biowaste, agricultural, OIW DSD 20,000 1986

Zulpich biowaste Hese Biogas 18,500 2005

Hungary

Palhalma food waste, manure Hese Biogas 96,500 2007


A-27

Ireland

Kilkenny Manure, food processing waste Biogas Nord 6,000 1999

Italy

Bassano 44,200 mixed, 8,200 source-sorted, 3000 sewage sludge Valorga 55,400 2003

Bastia/Brettona agricultural, OIW RPA 300,000 1982

Bellaria MSW Ionics Italbia 4,000 1988

Ca del Bue Verona MSW BTA-Biotec 150,000 2002

Marsciano agricultural, OIW SPI 300,000 1988

Project no. 134 (no location given) agricultural, OIW Schmack Biogas 2,000 1999

Project no. 178 manure, agricultural OIW Schmack Biogas 35,500 2002


Project no. 249 agricultural, OIW Schmack Biogas 67,800 2002

Project no. 292 agricultural, OIW Schmack Biogas 5,180 2003

Project no. 325 agricultural and OIW Schmack Biogas 75,000 2005



Rome biowaste Dranco 40,000 2003

Thiene agricultural, OIW KIKlos 60,000 1990

Villacidro MSW + 15,000 sewage sludge BTA-Biotec 55,000 2002

Voghera MSW, sludge Ros Roca 27,000 under construction

Netherlands

Breda biowaste Paques 10,000 1992

Breda OIW Paques 25,000 1987

Lelystad biowaste Heidemij, Biocel 35,000 1997

Tilburg biowaste Valorga 52,000 1994

Poland

Pulawy MSW BTA-Biotec 22,000 2001

Portugal

Tondela mixed (30,000) and biowaste Valorga 35,000 2007

Slovenia

Motvarjevci manure, fruit and veg AAT 23,000 2008

Spain

Barcelona biowaste and mixed BTA 50,000 2008

Barcelona biowaste Ros Roca 90,000

Botarell biowaste Kompogas 54,000 2008

8/12/08

A-28

Granollers biowaste and mixed BTA 45,000 2008

La Coruña OIW AAT 34,000 1993

Mallorca biowaste, sludge, OIW Ros Roca 32,500 2003

Pamplona MSW BTA-Biotec 100,000 under construction

Rioja biowaste Kompogas 75,000 2005

Terrassa biowaste Dranco 25,000 2006

Vitoria mixed waste Dranco 120,000 2006

Sweden

Boden biowaste 1,400

Borås biowaste YIT-VMT/ 15,600 1995

Eskilstuna biowaste 1,340

Falköping half is Biowaste 6,280

Helsingborg agricultural, biowaste OIW NSR 44,030 1996

Huddinge Biowaste 1,090

Jönköping half is biowaste 1,920

Kalmar agricultural, OIW VBB Viak/Lackeby 25,000 1998

Kristianstad biowaste, agricultural, OIW Krüger 73,000 1997

Laholm agricultural, OIW Krüger 47,310 1992

Linköping agricultural, OIW Purac 47,790 1997

Skellefteå half is biowaste 3,830

Uppsala biowaste, agricultural, OIW YIT-VMT/Läckeby 30,000 1997

Vetlanda Biowaste 3,000

Vänersborg biowaste YIT/VMT 12,340 2000

Västeras biowaste, energy crops, OIW Ros Roca 17,600 2005

Switzerland

Aarberg biowaste Dranco 11,000 1997

Aarberg biowaste Kompogas 12,000 2006

Baar biowaste LINDE 6,000 1994

Bachenbülach biowaste, yard Kompogas 4,000 2003

Bachenbülach biowaste, yard Kompogas 8,000 1994

Bernex biowaste Valorga 2000

Dietikon biowaste Kompogas 10,000 2005

Frauenfeld biowaste, OIW rom-OPUR 15,000 1999

Geneva biowaste Valorga 10,000 2000

Jona biowaste Kompogas 5,000 2005

Klingnau biowaste Kompogas 20,000 2008

Langenthal biowaste Kompogas 4,000 2006

Lenzburg biowaste Kompogas 5,000 2005

Muhen agricultural, OIW LINDE 5,000 1986


A-29

Niederuzwil biowaste Kompogas 20,000 1998 and 2005

Oetwil am See biowaste Kompogas 10,000 2001

Otelfingen biowaste Kompogas 12,500 1996

Ottenbach biowaste Kompogas 16,000 2006

Prattein biowaste Kompogas 12,500 2006

Rümlang biowaste, yard Kompogas 8,500 1991

Samnaun biowaste Hese Biogas 500 1999

Samstagern biowaste, yard Kompogas 10,000 1995

Utzenstorf biowaste Kompogas 12,000 2007

Villeneuve biowaste Dranco 10,000 1999

Volketswil biowaste, yard Kompogas 10,000 2000

Vuiteboeuf agricultural, OIW LINDE 6,900 1986

Wädenswil OIW Entec 5,000 1997

United Kingdom

Holsworthy Manure and biowaste (20%) Farmatic, now AnDigestion 146,000 Pre-2005

Lancashire Mixed MSW GRL (UR-3R, AD element from ) Expected

soon

Leicester Mixed MSW Haase (Biffa) 35,000 2005

Ludlow biowaste Greenfinch 5,000 2006

Twinwoods manure, biowaste, OIW Biogen 30,000 2005

Western Isles Organic waste Earth Tech 8,500 2007

*where OIW = Organic Industrial Waste

MSW = Municipal Solid Waste (no further details available).

Source: Table updated from Eunomia (2004) Feasibility Study Concerning Anaerobic Digestion in Northern Ireland, Final Report for Bryson House, ARENA Network and NI2000

8/12/08

A-30

A.5.0 Appendix 2: Contact List Abbr. contact types:

ps --- private sector (compost association; University etc.; experts)

min --- representative of responsible departments of national ministries

la --- local authority

res --- research experts mainly working in the area of the project

Country Type Email Name – Address etc. AT ps [email protected]

Mr. Robert Tulnik ARGE Kompost & Biogas Österreich Landstrasse 11 A-4020 Linz Tel: +43 (732) 94-60-54 Mobile: +43 (664) 5433440/

AT min [email protected]

Ms Nina Spatny Bundesminsterium für Landwurtschaft, Forstwortschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft Stubenbvastei 5 A-1010 Wien Tel: +43-1-51522 3532 Fax: +43-1-51522 3003

BE

min wim.vandenauweelevlaco.be Vlaco Wim Vanden Auweele Kan. De Deckerstraat 37 2800 MECHELEN BELGIUM Tel. +32 (0) 15 451 370 zentrale Fax. +32 (0) 15 218 335

BE Min [email protected] OVAM Luc Debaene Stationsstraat 110 B-2800 Mechelen Belgium Tel. +32 (0) 15 284 284 Fax. +32 (0) 15 203 275

BG

min [email protected]

Ms Liliya Evtimova Ministry of Environment and Waters Water Protection Department Maria Luisa, blvd. 22 BG 1000 Sofia BULGARIA Tel.: +359 2 9406627 http://www.moew.government.bg/index_e.html

BG

res [email protected] Maria Zlateva, Prof. Federation ‘intereco-21’ Green Alliance Association Kost. Vodopad Str., bl. 5A. ap 32 P.O.B. 87 BG-1407 Sofia BULGARIA Tel: +359 (2) 599810 Mobile: +359 (886) 369734


A-31

CY

min Mr. Michalis Partis Chief Inspector of Solid Waste Management Sector Ministry of Interior CY- 1453 Nikosia CYPRUS Tel.: +357 22867655 Fax: +357 22867832

CY Min [email protected] Christalla Kosta Sector of Land and Water Use Department of Agriculture Ministry of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environment CY-1411 Nikosia Cyprus

CZ

ps [email protected]

Vojta Reznicek ZERA Zemědělská a ekologická regionální agentura V. Nezvala 977 Náměšť n. O. CZECH REPUBLIC Tel: +420 724 144 401

CZ min [email protected] Dr Pavel Čermák CISTA Central Institute for Supervising and Testing in Agriculture, Section of Official Inspection, Hroznova Street 2, 656 06 Brno; Czech Republic Tel: +420 543 548331 Fax: +420 543 217325 Mobile: +420 737267150

CZ

min [email protected] Ms Alzbeta Pokorna Ministry of the Environment Vrsovicka 65 CZ-110 00 Praha 10 CZECH REPUBLIC Tel: +420 (267) 122936 Fax: +420 (267) 126936

DE

ps [email protected] Dr. Stefanie Siebert Bundesgütegemeinschaft Kompost e.V. (BGK) Von-der-Wettern Str. 25 51149 KÖLN-GREMBERGHOVEN GERMANY Tel: +49 (0) 22 03/358 370 Tel: +49 (0) 22 03/358 37 - 10 Fax: +49 (0) 22 03/358 37 - 12

DE res [email protected] Herr Prof. Dr. W. Bidlingmaier Bauhaus-Univ. Weimar - Abfallwirtschaft Coudraystr. 7 99423 WEIMAR GERMANY Tel.: +49 (0) 3643 58 46 14

8/12/08

A-32

DE res philipp@@uni-hohenheim.de Dr Werner PhilippUniv. Hohenheim - Instute. f. Umwelt- u. Tierhygiene Garbenstr. 30 70599 STUTTGART GERMANY Telefon: +49 (0) 711/459--22427 Fax: +49 (0)711/459-22431

DE res [email protected] Dr. Rainer Kluge Bonner Str. 28 76185 Karlsruhe Germany Tel. +49 721/75 63 24

DK

ps [email protected] Mr. Henrik Wejidling Danish Waste Management Association (DAKOFA) Vesterbrogade 74, 3. DK 1620 V Copenhagen DENMARK Tlf. direct: +45 32 64 61 23 Fax: +45 32 96 90 19

DK

min [email protected] Ms Inge Werther Danish Environmental Protection Agency Soil and Waste Department 29 Strandgade DK-1401 København K DENMARK Tel: +45 32 660337 Fax +45 32 660230

EE

min [email protected] Mr Robert Kiviselg Keskkonnaministeerium Jäätmeosakonna peaspetsialist Tallinn ESTONIA Tel: +372 626 2867 Mobile: +372 56 452155 Fax: +372 626 2801

ES la [email protected] [email protected]

Mr Francesc Giró i Fontanals Departament de Gestió de Matèria Orgànica Agència de Residus de Catalunya Dr. Roux, 80 ES-08017 Barcelona SPAIN Tel. + 34 93 567 33 00 Fax. + 34 93 567 33 05

ES min [email protected] [email protected]

Ms Ana Rodriguez Cruz Ministerio de Medio Ambiente Subdireción General de Calidad Ambiental Jefe de Area S.G. Calidad Ambiental Plaza San Juan de la Cruz, s./n. E-28071 Madrid SPAIN Tel: +34 (91) 5975798 Fax: +34 (91) 597 63 61

FI


Mr. Christoph Gareis YTV Waste Management Region Helsinki and Finnish Waste Management Association PL 521, FIN-00521 HELSINKI FINLAND tel. +358 9 1561 582, +358 40 829 6572 fax. +358 9 1561 722


A-33

FI min [email protected] Mr Ari Seppänen Ministry of Environment Kasarmikatu 25, FIN-00130 Helsinki FINLAND Tel: +358 9 160 39715 Fax: +358 9 160 39716

FR res [email protected] (Former Biowaste officer at ADEME)

Yves Coppin VEOLIA Environnement / D.R.D.T Tel.: +33 (0) 171 751 164 38 av. Kleber F-75116 PARIS FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0) 171 751 164

FR res [email protected] AWIPLAN S.A.R.L Jean-Michel Sidaine 30, Avenue du Général Leclerc 10200 Bar-Sur-Aube FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)325 92 3887

GR

wis [email protected] Professor Katia Lasaridi Dept. of Geography Harokopio University 70 El. Venizelou, 176 71 Kallithea, Athens GREECE Tel. +30 210-9549164 Fax: +30 210-9514759

HU

ps [email protected] [email protected]

Dr. Alexa Laszlo Hungarian Compost Quality Assurance Association Pater K.u. 1 2100 GÖDÖLLÖ HUNGARY Telefon +36 (0) 28 522 084 Fax +36 (0) 28 422 880 Mobil: +36 30 961 2602

HU

min [email protected] Mr SzabolcsHORVÁTH Ministry for Environment Responsible for Biowaste Budapest HUNGARY Tel:+36-1-457 3443

HU ps [email protected] [email protected]

Ms Beata Bagi and Mr Sandor Der (ABPR specialist) Pater K.u.1 Profikomp Hungary

IE


MR. Percy Foster Executive Administrator Cré - Composting Association of Ireland Teo Business Innovation Centre Institute of Technology Campus Ballinode, Sligo IRELAND Tel: +353 (0) 86 8129260 (Mobile)

8/12/08

A-34

IE

min brendan_o'[email protected]

Mr Brendan O'Neil Department of Enviroment, Heritage and Local Government Custom House Dublin 1 IRELAND Tel:+353 18882061 Fax: +353 18882014

IT res [email protected] Mr. Enzo Favoino Scuola Agraria del Parco di Monza Gruppo di Studio sul Compostaggio e la gestione Integrata dei Rifiuti Viale Cavriga 3, I-20052 Monza (MI), ITALY Tel. +39-039-230 26 60 Mobile +39-335-355 446 Fax +39-039-232 76 76

IT ps [email protected] Massimo Centemero Consorzio Italiano Compostatori CIC c/o CEM Ambiente loc. Cascina Sofia 20040 Cavenago Brianza (MI) - Italy Tel +39 02.95019471 Mobile +39 335.6258496

IT min [email protected] Mr. Fabio Tittarelli Istituto Sperimentale per la Nutrizione delle Piante Sezione di Nutrizione Azotata e Microbiologia del Terreno via della Navicella, 2 I-00184 Roma ITALY Tel: +39 (06) 7008721 Fax: +39 (06) 7005711

LT

ps [email protected] Mr. Vidas Andriks Laisves pr. 3 LT-04215 VILNIUS LITHUANIA Mobile: +37061277717 - with 0

LT min [email protected] Ms Ingrida Kavaliauskiene Ministry of Enviornment of the Republic of Lithuania A. Jaksto St. 4/9 LT-01105 Vilnius LITHUANIA Tel: +370 5 266 35 11 Fax:+ 370 5 266 36 63

LU

ps [email protected] IGLux s.a r.l. Klaus Gröll B.P. 44 3701 RUMELANGE LUXEMBOURG Tel. +352 26 56 501 Fax: - 5050 Mobile +352 (0) 621 166 474

LU

min [email protected] Mr Pierre Prum Minist`re de l'Enviornnement L-2918 Luxembourg LUXEMBOURG Tel:+352 48 6843 Fax:+352 400 410


A-35

LV

ps [email protected] Dr Ruta Bendere LASA Waste Management Association of Lativia Kursu Str. 9 - 2 1006 RIGA LATVIA Tel.: +371 755 13 81 Mobile: +371 917 15 99 - Falsch Fax: +371 755 13 61

LV min [email protected] Ms Ilze DONINA Ministry of Environment Head of Waste Division Peldu street 25 LV-1494 Riga LATVIA Tel.: + 371 7026 515 Fax: +371 7026 417

MA

min [email protected] Mr. Kevin Mercieca Malta Environment & Planning Authority St. Francis Ravelin Floriana, MALTA TEL: +356 2290 0000 FAX: +356 2290 2295 Net: www.mepa.org.mt

MA Min [email protected] Mr Joe Degiorgio Director of EU Affairs Ministry for Resources and Rural Affairs MALTA Tel: 0035622997211

NL ps [email protected] [email protected]

Dutch Waste Management Organisation DWMA Mr. Evert-Jan Verbunt Hugo de Grootlaan 39 NL-5223 LB ’s-Hertogenbosch NETHERLANDS Tel. +31 (0)73 627 94 44 Mob. +31 (0)6 42 46 11 96 Fax +31 (0)73 627 94 49

BVOR Dr.. Paul J.M. Sessink Agro Business Park 38 6708 PW WAGENINGEN NETHERLANDS tel. +31 (0) 317-426755, fax +31 (0) 317-417963 Mobil: +31(0) 65 31 73 662

NL res [email protected] Mr. Willem. Elsinga Elsinga policyplanning and innovation Horsterweg 127 3853 JA Ermelo THE NETHERLANDS Tel.: +31 (0) 341 564 112 Fax: +31 (0) 341 564 116 Mobile +31 (0) 615 397 696

8/12/08

A-36

PL


Grzegorz Siebielec Institute of Soil Science and Plant Cultivation Czartoryskich 8 PL 24-100 PULAWY POLAND Tel: +48 81 88 63 421 ext. 311 Fax: +48 81 88 64 547

PL

min [email protected] Mr Wojciech JAWORSKI Ministry for Environment Environmental Protection Instruments Tel: +48-22-5792327

PT

res [email protected] Professor Ana Silveira New University of Lisbon Environmental Engineering Department Quinta da Torre 2829-516 CAPARICA PORTUGAL Tel.: +351 (0) 21 2948300 Fax: +351 (0) 21 2948554 Mobile: +351 (0) 9640 766 22

PT

min [email protected] Ms Luisa Pinheiro Waste Institute of Portugal Avenida Almirante Gago Coutinho, n.º 30, 5º 1000-017 Lisboa PORTUGAL Tel: +351 (21) 8424022 Fax: +351 (21) 842 40 99

RO

min [email protected] [email protected]

Brînduşa PETROAICA Director – Directorate for Waste and Chemicals National Environmental Protection Agency BUCHAREST ROMANIA Tel: + 40 212071125, + 40 746248554 Mobile +40 746 248 554. Fax: + 40 212071154

SE ps hanna.hellstrom@avfallsverige .se

Ms. Hanna Hellström Avfall Sverige Prostgatan 2 211 25 MALMÖ SWEDEN Tel +46 40-35 66 23 Fax +46 40-35 66 26 Mob +46 70-73 68 249

SE min [email protected]

Simon Lundeberg Former Officer in charge of compost, digestate and sewage sludge at the Swedish EPA KB Klimatbyrån AB Travbanegatan 6 SWEDEN S- 213 77 Malmö Tel: +46 40 671 27 53

SI ps [email protected] [email protected]

Ms Marijana Cabrijan, CISTO MESTO PTUJ D.O.O. DORNAVSKA CESTA 26 2250 PTUJ SLOVENJA Tel +386 (2) 780 90 20 Mobile: +386 (41) 730 847 Fax: +386 (2) 7809030


A-37

SK

ps [email protected] Mr. Branislav Monok Spolocnost priatelov Zeme / Friends of the Earth Society Alzbetina 53, P.O. BOX H 39 SK-04001 Kosice SLOVAK REPUBLIC Tel: +421 (55) 677 1 677 Mobile: +421 (904) 124 726 Fax: +421 (55) 677 1 677

SK

min [email protected] Mr. Maroš Záhorský Ministry of the Environment of the Slovak Republic Waste Management Department Námestie L. Štúra 1, SK-812 35 Bratislava SLOVAK REPUBLIC Tel: +421 905 669 455

eunomia compost in agriculture final report - wrap compost in... · 2019-05-09 · questionnaires....

Documents